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 Kripke's framework allows ostensive definition to fix the reference of a name even when the named item resists descriptive characterization.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Ostensive definition requires interpretive uptake—a hearer must grasp which property or object the pointing targets, requiring some description.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Complete descriptive resistance creates indeterminacy: without criteria distinguishing target from lookalikes, reference becomes insecure.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kripke's causal-historical theory still presupposes an initial descriptive fixing to anchor the causal chain's origin point.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Ostensive definition (pointing) can establish reference without descriptive content, as shown by naming infants or novel objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Many natural kinds resist complete descriptive characterization yet have determinate reference via historical causal chains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Kripke's rigid designation allows names to refer across counterfactuals despite uncertainty about the named entity's properties.
?
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.