Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The standard account of identity entails that Pierre's doxastic position cannot be as described (or we must punt).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If Pierre's doxastic position is as described, then London and Londres are distinct objects (per Church's argument).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
London and Londres are not different cities.
?
How convincing is this?
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.