Soames and Stanley have argued that descriptive names and complex singular terms can be rigid if their referent is fixed at the context of utterance rather than re-evaluated at each possible world.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Soames and Stanley(as philosophers being cited for their argument)
Scott Soames and Jason Stanley are contemporary philosophers who study language and meaning; they've written influential work on how words refer to things in the world.
context of utterance(The temporal operator 'one hundred years ago' is said to shift this context for expressions in its scope)
The contextual parameters (including time) relative to which the reference of context-sensitive expressions is determined
possible world(Leibniz's account of modality; 'existence' of possible worlds is shorthand for compossibility, not literal existence)
A set of compossible essences — a maximal collection of individual natures that can co-exist without contradiction
referent(what Russell says is the sole meaning of proper names)
The actual thing in the real world that a word points to or stands for—for example, the referent of 'Abraham Lincoln' is the actual historical person.