Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Types have a definite identity as signs despite admitting a great variety of appearances.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Type identity depends on community-relative conventions, making it indeterminate across linguistic communities (Wittgenstein, PI §201).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If identity conditions are convention-relative, no single type has a definite identity independent of a particular interpretive practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Quine's inscriptionalism holds that only concrete tokens exist; positing types as abstract objects with definite identity is ontologically profligate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The explanatory work attributed to type-identity can be fully discharged by similarity relations among tokens, eliminating the need for types.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The symbol '&', the word 'and', and its spoken sound are all one word (one type).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A legisign has a definite identity though it admits a great variety of appearances.
?
How convincing is this?
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.