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
    Therefore, that Languages I and II have intended readings... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Carnap's so-called 'syntactic' method in the Logical Syntax actually includes much of what should properly be called semantics

    Therefore, that Languages I and II have intended readings does not entail their governing metalanguage employs genuinely semantic concepts in the post-Tarskian sense.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Intended readings can arise from syntactic/pragmatic conventions without requiring post-Tarskian semantic concepts like satisfaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A metalanguage can describe I and II's interpretability using purely structural or computational resources, not semantic primitives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The post-Tarskian framework presupposes realism about semantic properties that syntactic substitutes can accomplish without.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a metalanguage genuinely explains how Languages I and II have intended readings, it must employ semantic concepts or reduce to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Post-Tarskian semantics (reference, truth-conditions, satisfaction) are indispensable for distinguishing intended from unintended readings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Denying the metalanguage uses genuine semantics risks collapsing into anti-realism about the intended readings themselves.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A metalanguage can describe I and II's interpretability using purely structural ...Carnap's so-called 'syntactic' method in the Logical Syntax actually includes mu...Denying the metalanguage uses genuine semantics risks collapsing into anti-reali...If a metalanguage genuinely explains how Languages I and II have intended readin...
    +3 moreShow less
    Intended readings can arise from syntactic/pragmatic conventions without requiri...Post-Tarskian semantics (reference, truth-conditions, satisfaction) are indispen...The post-Tarskian framework presupposes realism about semantic properties that s...

    Details

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