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
    The propositions expressed by 'Hesperus is bright' and 'P... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The propositions expressed by 'Hesperus is bright' and 'Phosphorus is bright' have different fundamental constituents, even though Hesperus is Phosphorus.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' can be analyzed via distinct complex predicates ('E(x) ∧ S(x)' and 'M(x) ∧ S(x)') involving different functions specified in terms of evenings and mornings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These distinct complex predicates can both map Venus and nothing else to the truth-value T while still differing as propositional constituents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Propositional constituents need not be 'ways of presenting' Bedeutungen to differ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's own mature view holds that names have both Sinn and Bedeutung, and propositions are individuated by the Sinne of their constituents, not by functional predicates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' express different Sinne, the difference in propositional content is already fully explained without positing distinct complex predicates as fundamental constituents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Introducing complex predicates like 'E(x) ∧ S(x)' as propositional constituents merely relocates the problem of sense-individuation rather than dissolving it, since those predicates themselves require distinct Sinne to differ.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Millian direct-reference theorists like Kripke and Salmon hold that the semantic content of a proper name just is its referent, making 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' strict semantic duplicates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On a Russellian singular proposition view, 'Hesperus is bright' and 'Phosphorus is bright' express the very same structured proposition: ⟨Venus, brightness⟩.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The apparent cognitive difference between the two sentences is explained pragmatically or psychologically, not by positing distinct fundamental propositional constituents, preserving compositionality without multiplying semantic entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' can be analyzed via distinct complex predicates ('E(...Frege's own mature view holds that names have both Sinn and Bedeutung, and propo...If 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' express different Sinne, the difference in propos...Introducing complex predicates like 'E(x) ∧ S(x)' as propositional constituents ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Millian direct-reference theorists like Kripke and Salmon hold that the semantic...On a Russellian singular proposition view, 'Hesperus is bright' and 'Phosphorus ...Propositional constituents need not be 'ways of presenting' Bedeutungen to diffe...The apparent cognitive difference between the two sentences is explained pragmat...These distinct complex predicates can both map Venus and nothing else to the tru...

    Similar

    The proposition that Hesperus is bright can be distinguished from the ...92%The propositions expressed by 'Hesperus is Hesperus' and 'Hesperus is ...81%If two propositions differ by a constituent, then they are different p...80%Only the proposition expressed by 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' has predica...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logical-form
    View source passageHide passage
    where ‘\(E(x)\)’ and ‘\(M(x)\)’ indicate different functions, specified (respectively) in terms of evenings and mornings. This leaves room for the discovery that the complex predicates ‘\(E(x) \land S(x)\)’ and ‘\(M(x) \land S(x)\)’ both indicate functions that map Venus and nothing else to the truth-value T. The hypothesis was that the propositions expressed with ‘Hesperus is bright’ and ‘Phosphorus is bright’ have different (fundamental) constituents, even though Hesperus is Phosphorus, but n
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit