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 Names are rigid designators that directly refer to objects without the mediation of descriptive senses (Kripke, Naming and Necessity).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Names lack intrinsic semantic content; their referents depend on causal-historical chains that presuppose prior descriptive identification.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Names can refer to objects even when associated descriptions are false (e.g., 'Aristotle' refers despite false biographical claims).
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
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.