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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Kripke's modal argument establishes that proper names are rigid designators, referring to the same object across all possible worlds regardless of descriptive content.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Rigid designation assumes a determinate identity across worlds, but our criteria for cross-world identity may be conventional or epistemically indeterminate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Names acquire their reference partly through historical-causal chains embedded in social practices, which themselves may vary across possible worlds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument conflates semantic rigidity (how we use names) with metaphysical rigidity (how objects persist), which may not align in all cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Names like 'Nixon' pick out the same individual in all possible worlds where that person exists, independent of any defining descriptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Intuitions about counterfactual identity support rigidity: we say 'if Nixon had lost, he would still be Nixon,' not 'someone else would be.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Descriptive theories of names create intractable problems of circular definition and fail to explain how names refer to non-existent or misconceived objects.
      ?

      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.