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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Whiting's defense of semantic obligations via the possibility of criticizing a speaker who misapplies an expression out of mere desire is not convincing

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The speaker acts as she does precisely because of what she means by the expression
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the speaker acts in accordance with what she means, there is no semantic reason to criticize her
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Semantic norms are constituted by communal practice, not individual speaker intention (Kripke's Wittgenstein, 'Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A speaker who misapplies 'plus' as 'quus' from desire diverges from communal use regardless of internal consistency with her own meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Criticism is therefore grounded in deviation from public semantic standards, not in contradiction of the speaker's private rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Whiting conflates acting in accordance with a meaning-rule with acting correctly by that rule's normative standard (cf. Boghossian's distinction in 'The Rule-Following Considerations').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A speaker can systematically misapply a term from desire while still violating the correctness conditions constitutive of that term's semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The availability of semantic criticism therefore does not require internal inconsistency but only divergence from the term's correctness conditions.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42