Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The intentional fallacy is no fallacy at all in everyday discourse, strictly speaking

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's own framework distinguishes natural meaning from non-natural meaning, where the latter requires uptake of intention by the hearer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If successful communication requires the hearer to recognize the speaker's intention, then intention is not criterial for meaning but instrumental to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A criterion that depends on external uptake for its semantic efficacy is not a criterion in any robust sense, undermining P1's foundational claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that meaning is constituted by public linguistic practice, not by private intentional states.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If meaning supervenes on social practice rather than individual intention, then a speaker's intention carries evidential weight only derivatively, collapsing P2's premise into a weaker, defeasible heuristic rather than a genuine semantic principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A speaker's intention that 'S' means m is criterial for 'S' meaning m
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A speaker's intention must be regarded as having some evidential weight in determining the speaker's sentence's meaning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.