To say "This rock exists" is saying something about the rock. Can this same something be said of the rock of yesterday or tomorrow? — hypericin
To say “This rock exists” is saying something about the rock. But have I said anything less if I just pointed to the rock and said “This rock”. — Richard B
And would I say anything more if I said “This is the rock I stubbed my toe on yesterday and by the way it still exists. You mean now? No, I mean still exists in yesterday.” — Richard B
This is good example of confusion disguised as deep metaphysical musings. — Richard B
This rock exists cannot be said of the rock of yesterday nor the rock of tomorrow, — Mww
I am wondering more about what it is saying about the person who says it and in what situation saying it would be of any use. — Fooloso4
Every single 'now'? Have you ever experienced more than one? — Tate
which is also saying something, but not the same something, — Mww
which says something about this rock but does not say the same thing — Mww
Yes, it does, since you are talking about it. — Banno
How about the term "exist"?how we use the term "such-and-such". — Banno
You are asking the wrong question. — Banno
As I noted, even if it exists, it isn't evidence for your position. — T Clark
I don't see any necessary connection between the conditions you describe and the results you claim. — T Clark
I don't see that as evidence for your point at all. — T Clark
As noted earlier by myself and others, no evidence has been provided that this is really the way things work. It doesn't seem likely to me. — T Clark
cheerleading different linguistic conventions that emphasize different semantics for different purposes. — sime
To think otherwise is to grant linguists powers of omniscient authority. — sime
Would we all be wrong who say "Joe Biden is president?" — hypericin
See the SEP article on names — Michael
Let A and B be any two terms which differ in extension. By assumption (II) they must differ in meaning (in the sense of "intension").
Yes, this is why I disagree with Putnam. Putnam believes that differences in the thing in itself, differences which we have no access to, can impose change on our meaning. These differences can only impose changes in the absolute facticity of our claims.Arent we condemned to a world of ideas? — Joshs
the term "the President" refers to Joe Biden. — Michael
And in such a scenario if you were to say "this is a glass of water" you would be wrong because it isn't a glass of water, it's a glass of twin-water. — Michael
That's a proper name. "Michael" doesn't really mean anything, it's just an identifier. — Michael
n other words, there's no such thing as what I mean by the word "water", there is only what the word "water" means. — Michael
Let A and B be any two terms which differ in extension. By assumption (II) they must differ in meaning (in the sense of "intension").
I suggest they're interchangeable. — bongo fury
If you prefer. The point being that it clearly distinguishes meaning and reference, in contrast to your title. — Banno
I suggest they're interchangeable. We all know that your sentence S refers to water in general, and cold things in general. We just don't know which bit of water you mean. — bongo fury