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
    Names are rigid designators that directly refer to object... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The names 'Superman' and 'Clark Kent' differ in sense despite being coreferential.

    Names are rigid designators that directly refer to objects without the mediation of descriptive senses (Kripke, Naming and Necessity).

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Names can refer to objects even when associated descriptions are false (e.g., 'Aristotle' refers despite false biographical claims).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We can intelligibly ask 'Is the person satisfying description D actually named N?' only if the name doesn't reduce to that description.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cross-possible-world identity of referents requires names to operate independently of contingent descriptive content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Names lack intrinsic semantic content; their referents depend on causal-historical chains that presuppose prior descriptive identification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Proper name acquisition requires understanding the object *as* something (under some identifying description), contradicting purely direct reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's account underdetermines reference: identical causal chains could yield different referents without descriptive constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Cross-possible-world identity of referents requires names to operate independent...Kripke's account underdetermines reference: identical causal chains could yield ...Names can refer to objects even when associated descriptions are false (e.g., 'A...Names lack intrinsic semantic content; their referents depend on causal-historic...
    +3 moreShow less
    Proper name acquisition requires understanding the object *as* something (under ...The names 'Superman' and 'Clark Kent' differ in sense despite being coreferentia...We can intelligibly ask 'Is the person satisfying description D actually named N...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit