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 standard account of identity entails that Pierre's do... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The standard account of identity entails that Pierre's doxastic position cannot be as described (or we must punt).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Pierre's doxastic position is as described, then London and Londres are distinct objects (per Church's argument).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.London and Londres are not different cities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's puzzle shows that the standard Fregean apparatus for handling belief reports is independently defective, not that Pierre's situation is impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pierre's doxastic position is describable without contradiction if we reject the disquotation principle as universally valid across languages.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke himself concludes the puzzle indicts our concept of belief, not that Pierre cannot hold the beliefs attributed to him.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Relativized or two-dimensional semantics (à la Kaplan/Chalmers) allows 'London' and 'Londres' to differ in cognitive significance while co-referring, dissolving the Fregean dilemma.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Church's argument assumes that propositional attitude reports are fully transparent to co-referential substitution, a premise Frege's own framework was designed to deny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    Church's argument assumes that propositional attitude reports are fully transpar...If Pierre's doxastic position is as described, then London and Londres are disti...Kripke himself concludes the puzzle indicts our concept of belief, not that Pier...Kripke's puzzle shows that the standard Fregean apparatus for handling belief re...
    +3 moreShow less
    London and Londres are not different cities.Pierre's doxastic position is describable without contradiction if we reject the...Relativized or two-dimensional semantics (à la Kaplan/Chalmers) allows 'London' ...

    Similar

    The advocate of the standard account of identity must maintain either ...79%Either Pierre's doxastic position cannot be as described in §2.6 or Lo...78%Leibniz's Law (the standard account of identity) applies78%The standard account of identity holds.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    Church’s argument implies that if Pierre’s doxastic position is as described (in §2.6), then London and Londres are distinct objects. Assuming the standard account of identity, the result is that either Pierre’s doxastic position cannot be as described or else London and Londres are different cities (or else we must punt). Since London and Londres are not different cities, the standard account entails that Pierre’s doxastic position cannot be as described (or else we must punt). This was Church’
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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