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 theory that saying and believing are relations to par... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The theory that saying and believing are relations to particular physical tokens of sentences is implausible.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The same belief (e.g., that snow is white) can be held by speakers of different languages, none of whose sentence tokens are identical in any physical respect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If believing were a relation to physical tokens, type-identical beliefs across languages would be impossible, contradicting the evident fact of cross-linguistic propositional agreement (Frege, 'The Thought', 1918).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any adequate theory of belief must preserve the transitivity of shared belief content across distinct physical realizations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Beliefs exhibit intentionality—they are intrinsically about something—but physical tokens have no intrinsic aboutness, only derived meaning (Searle, Intentionality, 1983).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A relation requiring one relatum to possess a property the other cannot possess in principle is metaphysically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If believing were a relation to a particular physical token, then destroying that token would void the corresponding belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Destroying a physical inscription of a sentence does not void the belief that was expressed by that inscription (e.g., destroying a token of a sentence Seneca believed would not have voided Seneca's belief).
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageConsciousness & Mind

    Related

    A relation requiring one relatum to possess a property the other cannot possess ...Any adequate theory of belief must preserve the transitivity of shared belief co...Beliefs exhibit intentionality—they are intrinsically about something—but physic...Destroying a physical inscription of a sentence does not void the belief that wa...
    +3 moreShow less
    If believing were a relation to a particular physical token, then destroying tha...If believing were a relation to physical tokens, type-identical beliefs across l...The same belief (e.g., that snow is white) can be held by speakers of different ...

    Similar

    A theory that, combined with true claims about meaning and the truism ...81%Destroying a physical inscription of a sentence does not void the beli...78%The hypothetical paraphrase strategy for belief ascriptions is implaus...78%It is wildly implausible to attribute such hypothetical intent to comm...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: church
    View source passageHide passage
    A natural analysis of such sentences is that they express a relation between Seneca or Columbus and the propositions that man is a rational animal or that the world is round, where such propositions are objective abstract entities that are the ultimate vehicles of truth and meaning. But there has been—and no doubt always will be—skepticism about the existence of such entities and this has motivated the view that sentences such as (1) and (2) express relations between agents and sentence types or
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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