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 Demonstrative reference requires a backing description to fix which object is demonstrated, as Searle argues in 'Intentionality' (1983).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Direct reference theories (Kripke, Kaplan) show demonstratives can pick out objects without prior descriptive identification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Infants and animals use demonstrative-like pointing without possessing explicit backing descriptions about the object.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Descriptions can be false or absent while demonstration still succeeds, suggesting descriptions aren't necessary for reference.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Demonstratives like 'this' and 'that' require individuating criteria to distinguish their referents from other nearby objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without descriptive content fixing the relevant object, demonstrations would fail to secure determinate reference in ambiguous contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Searle's internalist account explains how speaker intentions connect demonstrative utterances to world via conceptual content.
?
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.