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
    Under Frege's theory, 'Juliet' and 'Romeo' contribute mod... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Someone likes Juliet and Romeo likes someone (∃x[L(x,j)] ∧ ∃x[L(r,x)]).

    Under Frege's theory, 'Juliet' and 'Romeo' contribute modes of presentation, not bare objects, making substitution of variables non-trivial.

    ?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.Proper names like 'Juliet' have different cognitive significance for speakers despite referring to the same individual, suggesting distinct modes of presentation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If names contributed only bare objects, 'Romeo loves Juliet' and 'Romeo loves Romeo' would be logically equivalent, contradicting their apparent informativeness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Substitution preserving truth-value requires more than referential identity; it requires sameness of sense, supporting Frege's distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Modes of presentation are notoriously difficult to individuate and ontologically characterize, making Frege's theory metaphysically obscure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modern causal-historical accounts explain name reference without invoking modes of presentation, providing a simpler alternative explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Substitution failures may reflect pragmatic context-dependence rather than semantic content, undercutting Frege's theoretical motivation.
      ?

      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

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    If names contributed only bare objects, 'Romeo loves Juliet' and 'Romeo loves Ro...Modern causal-historical accounts explain name reference without invoking modes ...Modes of presentation are notoriously difficult to individuate and ontologically...Proper names like 'Juliet' have different cognitive significance for speakers de...
    +3 moreShow less
    Someone likes Juliet and Romeo likes someone (∃x[L(x,j)] ∧ ∃x[L(r,x)]).Substitution failures may reflect pragmatic context-dependence rather than seman...Substitution preserving truth-value requires more than referential identity; it ...

    Details

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