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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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