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 Word tokens of 'cat' are to be individuated on the basis of their being spelled 'c'-'a'-'t'
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Tokens of 'cat' written in different scripts (e.g., transliterated Arabic) can refer to the same word-type across languages, defeating spelling as the sole criterion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Peirce's original type-token distinction was grounded in physical inscription patterns, not orthographic rules, making spelling a derived rather than foundational criterion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that applying any spelling rule requires background practices, so spelling cannot be a self-interpreting individuation criterion.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If two communities spell a word differently by convention (e.g., 'colour' vs. 'color'), the individuation criterion must appeal to use and community norms, not spelling alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Spelling is what makes a token a token of 'cat' rather than another type
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The individuation criterion for tokens follows from the criterion for type membership
?
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.