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 Va direction of Basic Law V is not problematic.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Va presupposes that every concept has a determinate extension, smuggling in an existential commitment that cannot be taken for granted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Frege's own system shows that unrestricted concept-to-extension mapping generates contradictions, so Va's 'functional constraint' inherits this instability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A direction principle that assumes the coherence of its domain objects cannot be deemed unproblematic when that coherence is precisely what is at issue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Boolos argued that the Va direction still relies on the same impredicative comprehension principles that make Basic Law V as a whole inconsistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Separating Va from Vb obscures that both directions jointly constitute a biconditional whose left-to-right reading cannot be evaluated without invoking the full problematic law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Va only entails that distinct extensions are correlated with distinct concepts, which is a functional constraint on concept-to-extension mapping.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinct concepts may still be correlated with the same extension under Va, leaving room for non-injective mappings without contradiction.
      ?

      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.