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 modal arguments show that proper names are rigid designators tracking objects across possible worlds without descriptive sense.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Names appear to acquire reference through historical-causal chains involving descriptions, undermining the pure rigidity picture.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing rigid designation from descriptive content may be unclear: speaker intentions always involve some conceptual criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Cross-world identity of objects itself requires criteria of identity—names alone don't settle which counterpart is 'the same' object.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The intuition that 'Aristotle' refers to the same person across possible worlds independent of his properties supports rigid designation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Kripke's modal arguments show descriptive theories fail: the same description picks different objects in different possible worlds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Scientific identities (water = H2O) require rigid designators to express necessary truths about what things fundamentally are.
?
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.