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 Proper names, unlike common nouns, do not convey any descriptive content that would be false if the bearer lacked the associated properties.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Names acquire meaning through historical-causal chains involving descriptions; we identify bearers only via associated properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Proper names in sentences like 'Socrates was wise' presuppose existence and some minimal identifying descriptions to refer.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Names function pragmatically as disguised definite descriptions that would fail reference if bearers lacked identifying properties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Names like 'Aristotle' refer rigidly to individuals across possible worlds regardless of their properties or descriptions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We can coherently imagine 'Aristotle' existing without being a philosopher, yet we'd still refer to the same person.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Common nouns like 'teacher' logically require bearer possession of teaching properties; names do not require any 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.