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 Under Frege's theory, 'Juliet' and 'Romeo' contribute modes of presentation, not bare objects, making substitution of variables non-trivial.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Modes of presentation are notoriously difficult to individuate and ontologically characterize, making Frege's theory metaphysically obscure.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Proper names like 'Juliet' have different cognitive significance for speakers despite referring to the same individual, suggesting distinct modes of presentation.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.