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 Therefore, something beyond meaning—the stated content fixed by context—is required to determine truth-conditions, vindicating Austin's locutionary/illocutionary distinction.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Context conventionally determines illocutionary force, so no 'something beyond meaning' is metaphysically required.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Truth-conditions depend on propositional content, not illocutionary force—these can be kept analytically distinct.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Austin's distinction conflates semantic properties (meaning) with pragmatic effects (what utterances accomplish socially).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Context alone cannot determine whether 'I promise to pay' creates a legal obligation versus merely expresses intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The same locutionary content ('You're late') has different truth-conditions when uttered as complaint versus statement of fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Austin's distinction correctly identifies that meaning and force are separable components of linguistic acts.
      ?

      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.