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 relation between a proper name and its referent is merely linguistic.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A proper name rigidly designates the same individual across all possible worlds, tracking metaphysical identity rather than linguistic convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A relation that holds necessarily across all possible worlds—connecting a name to its bearer regardless of counterfactual circumstance—cannot be merely linguistic, since linguistic conventions are contingent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's modal argument establishes that the name-referent link is grounded in the causal-historical chain of dubbing, which is an objective metaphysical fact, not a brute linguistic stipulation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.E.E.C. Jones herself argued that identity propositions like 'Tully is Cicero' are cognitively significant precisely because the name-referent relation involves a logical distinction between sense and reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the name-referent relation were merely linguistic, there would be no explanation for why co-referential proper names can differ in cognitive value, yet this difference is a substantive logical phenomenon requiring analysis beyond convention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A proper name has its reference determined by convention, not by logical analysis of its constituents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When a name's reference is conventionally determined, the only way to specify what it stands for is via the brute schema 'name stands for the referent/denotation of name'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A relation that can only be stated as a brute conventional fact, admitting no further analysis, is merely linguistic rather than logical.
      ?

      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.