tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post2381200112629874429..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Reference fixing by descriptionEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-85351553814775168422011-12-31T16:14:49.869+00:002011-12-31T16:14:49.869+00:00Thanks, Ed, and a Happy New Year to you. I guess ...Thanks, Ed, and a Happy New Year to you. I guess I should resolve to try once more to understand Kripke's rigid designators. They have always struck me as something that had to be laid down by fiat to make the possible worlds picture of modality work. The weight of objections usually brings me to a grinding halt fairly quickly, but I'll try the SEP article again. It's not one of the best, I think, and on a difficult topic.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-31237314295134153402011-12-31T00:09:18.816+00:002011-12-31T00:09:18.816+00:00Kripke didn't quite get Russell on def. descri...Kripke didn't quite get Russell on def. description (or Russell's cackling at Mill). Russell realized a description involved uniqueness, and a little equation (which Kreepke never got) and was not a necessary relation but empirical, broadly speaking. In short, Saulie lost that little battle (as Searle realized), but he's too dogmatic and conservative to admit itJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-28712196979662232702011-12-30T20:12:36.742+00:002011-12-30T20:12:36.742+00:00"on the assumption that a single person wrote..."on the assumption that a single person wrote those plays, which is not particularly heroic"<br /><br />As you pointed out yourself, though, this assumption contradicts the Oxfordian theory.<br /><br />"The question whether that is the meaning of ‘Shakespeare’ is a separate one which should not be confused with whether we can reference fix at all."<br /><br />Fair enough. I'm going to chalk it up as not understanding this whole "reference fixing" bit.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-16391166407519831162011-12-30T17:03:05.799+00:002011-12-30T17:03:05.799+00:00>leaving room only for a deflationary account s...>leaving room only for a deflationary account such<br /><br />On the contrary, Kripke uses this to justify the idea of 'rigid designator', an idea that has a strong affinity with theories of direct reference.<br /><br />Nice to see you back, David.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-60517496865931055182011-12-30T16:44:18.542+00:002011-12-30T16:44:18.542+00:00>> Kripke’s point – there is an excellent s...>> Kripke’s point – there is an excellent summary of it in the SEP article on Reference - is that while we can determine the reference of a proper name by some uniquely satisfied description – for example, we can fix the reference of ‘Aristotle’ as ‘the last great philosopher of antiquity’, the semantics of the name cannot be identical with the semantics of the description. For ‘the last great philosopher of antiquity’ might well apply to Plato in a possible world where Aristotle died in infancy. <br /><br />Is this saying that the semantics of a proper name must be independent of the contingent aspects of the world? If so, this is a strong constraint on what the semantics might be, leaving room only for a deflationary account such as 'Frodo-Frodo', I would guess. Not that I find this unattractive.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-79034516517142367822011-12-30T10:15:34.595+00:002011-12-30T10:15:34.595+00:00>>I am arguing that your particular descript...>>I am arguing that your particular description ("the man who wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon") does not suffice to fix the reference within the context you wish to fix it (a context in which Oxfordian and Stratfordian and Baconian theories are all left under consideration).<br /><br />Perhaps this is one of those cases where what seems perfectly obvious to one person is incomprehensible to another. Gareth Evans gives the example “the man who invented the zip”, which is a reference fixing description, and then says we can call him ‘Julius’. Another example is the person who viciously murdered prostitutes in the East End of London in the late 19C, who we call ‘Jack’ (the Ripper). Similarly, it is quite clear and obvious to me that, given someone must have written the Shakespeare plays, and on the assumption that a single person wrote those plays, which is not particularly heroic, then we can dub that person ‘Shakespeare’. The question whether that is the meaning of ‘Shakespeare’ is a separate one which should not be confused with whether we can reference fix at all. Given that method of fixing, it is then perfectly reasonable to ask whether Shakespeare (in that sense, i.e. whoever wrote the plays) is Shakespeare of Avon, the son of the grain merchant, or whether the Earl of Oxford, or Bacon, or anyone else.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-82586279708645540292011-12-29T17:00:41.234+00:002011-12-29T17:00:41.234+00:00>> while we can determine the reference of a...>> while we can determine the reference of a proper name by some uniquely satisfied description [...] the semantics of the name cannot be identical with the semantics of the description<br /><br />Absolutely. Proper names, to quote Mill (who said this way before Kripke) "denote the individuals who are called by them".<br /><br />I'm not disputing that a proper name *can* be defined by some uniquely satisfied description, nor that a proper name is not identical to that uniquely satisfied description. However, I *am* claiming that the description you have proposed for "Shakespeare" does not accomplish that. At least it does not accomplish it within the context in which you wish for me to apply it (namely, a context in which don't know who wrote the plays and poems in question).<br /><br />Is this a problem with "the whole idea of fixing reference by description". Maybe sort of. I don't reject that one can fix a reference with a description, within a context. I do reject that one can fix a reference with a description in a way which is free of context.<br /><br />But moreover, I am arguing that your particular description ("the man who wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon") does not suffice to fix the reference within the context you wish to fix it (a context in which Oxfordian and Stratfordian and Baconian theories are all left under consideration).Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com