If proper names carried sense in the way common nouns do, substituting 'Aristotle' for 'the pupil of Plato' should preserve truth-value in all contexts, yet it demonstrably does not.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Aristotle: Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived over 2,000 years ago and is one of the most influential thinkers in Western history. He studied nearly every subject—from animals and plants to politics and ethics—and developed practical ways of thinking that shaped how people understand the world. His ideas on logic, nature, and how to live a good life are still taught and debated today because he focused on observing the real world rather than just abstract theories.
Plato(the person whose decision to write is being analyzed in this example): An ancient Greek philosopher (around 428-348 BCE) who wrote famous dialogues exploring big questions about knowledge, justice, and reality.
Pupil of Plato(as used in the example): A student who studied under Plato's teaching—in this case, referring to Aristotle, who actually attended Plato's Academy.
Sense (in philosophy of language)(what the statement says would need to be individuated (separated)): The meaning or concept of a word or phrase—what it *means* rather than just what it *refers to*. For example, 'the morning star' and 'the evening star' refer to the same thing (Venus) but have different senses.

Based on where you are in your exploration