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 Two co-referential names can differ in content

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Names are directly referential tags whose semantic content is exhausted by their referent, not any associated description or mode of presentation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two names share the same referent, they share the same semantic content, and apparent cognitive differences reflect psychology, not semantics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's modal argument shows names are rigid designators whose content cannot vary across worlds, undermining any descriptive sense that would differentiate co-referential names.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's 'modes of presentation' are never given a satisfactory non-circular individuation criterion, making sense-based content distinctions explanatorily idle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The informativeness of 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is fully explained by epistemic differences in how agents acquire names, requiring no difference in semantic content between the names themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Names refer to objects via a mode of presentation, called a sense
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Two names can present the same referent via different modes of presentation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Difference in mode of presentation constitutes a difference in sense
      ?

      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.