Yes, if what you say is true, you should; so....in order to substantiate the truth of what you are saying...start outlining... — Janus
...you should be able to outline a simple scenario without resorting to any definite description... — Janus
But I have some concerns still with the idea of an essence. For Kripke one part of essence is to do with whaat an individual is made from. It occurs to me that someone might dig up his corpse and rubberise it... Would he then be a golf ball? — Banno
...it should take far less effort to produce such an outline than it does to keep giving excuses for why you won't. — Janus
When you say that I should be able to produce an outline of a simple scenario without resorting to any definitive description, are you talking about what my outline necessarily requires? — creativesoul
Yes. — Janus
The proof that definite description is not a necessary part of successful reference are cases of successful reference by false description. — creativesoul
Now, the astute reader will realize and certainly agree that it does not follow from that that definitive descriptions are a necessary part of the scenarios themselves, unless one conflates what's necessary for my outline with what's necessary for what's being outlined. That - of course - is absurd. — creativesoul
If you can refer to someone with a false description, then you must know something true about them. — Janus
One of the costs involved is that individuals are more fixed than was thought, across our modal musings. Specifically, a proper name fixes one individual across all accessible possible worlds in which that individual exists. An implication of this is that, since a definite description that fixes an individual in the actual world might turn out to be false, or be stipulated to be false, then the theory that the meaning of a name is given by an associated description is bunk. — Banno
Seems to me that it is about Thales. And that despite our not knowing anything about him. — Banno
But what you say about Thales does not refer to anyone, if such a person never existed. — Janus
And what could it possibly mean to say that Thales did exist, even though every definite description of him is false? — Janus
Every description could not be false; — Janus
Every description could not be false; it must mean at minimum that there was a man who was named Thales about whom many stories abound but nothing is known other than that he lived in some more or less definite area as some more or less definite time. — Janus
But crucially, not a definite description. It does not single him out, at least not without the circularity of "Thales" is the man named Thales.That he was named 'Thales' is a description as is... — Janus
If even those descriptions were false, then it could not mean anything to say that Thales had actually existed. — Janus
I don't see that a proper name, by itself, "fixes one individual....". — Janus
If I set up a counterfactual scenario involving a man named 'Donald Trump' how will you know which man I am referring to if you don't know Donald Trump personally, or at least know who he is? — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.