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 Undefinability under conditionalization reveals a substantive logical role, not an eliminable convenience.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Undefinability via conditionalization may reflect limitations of a particular formal framework, not deep metaphysical or logical necessity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Alternative logical systems (multi-valued, paraconsistent) define conditionals through other means, suggesting undefinability is framework-dependent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Calling something a 'substantive role' risks conflating practical indispensability in a system with irreducible logical primacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Some logical operators (like the conditional itself) cannot be defined using only other operators without circularity or infinite regress.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If a concept plays a foundational role that other definitions depend upon, eliminating it would collapse rather than simplify the logical system.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Undefinability often indicates primitiveness—a fundamental feature rather than a notational artifact needing removal.
?
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.