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 Using language at all commits the speaker only to conventional presuppositions, not to metaphysical realities.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Successful reference requires that at least some terms reliably track mind-independent features of reality, as Kripke's causal theory of reference demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If language were purely conventional with no metaphysical anchoring, the stability and cross-contextual success of reference to natural kinds would be inexplicable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, competent language use commits speakers to more than mere convention—it presupposes causal-metaphysical links between terms and their referents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Candrakīrti's own use of logical inference to establish conventionalism is self-undermining: logical laws like non-contradiction appear to be metaphysically necessary, not merely conventional.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the claim that 'language commits us only to conventions' is itself advanced as a substantive truth, it implicitly appeals to a non-conventional fact about the nature of language.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Wilfrid Sellars showed that the 'space of reasons' governing assertion has normative structure that cannot be fully deflated into social convention without vicious regress.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Language rests on presuppositions about selves and causally arising phenomena.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Those presuppositions are untenable and not grounded in realities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Language is purely conventional in nature.
      ?

      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.