But they are definite descriptions if they determine which Thales we are referring to, which you seemed to be claiming that they do, when you used them to specify which Thales we have been referring to. — Janus
I have been thinking that it is not really the name 'Thales' which is a rigid designator, but rather something like 'that man'. Which man? 'The man called Thales who.....' — Janus
Interestingly, 'The man called Thales' is a description but not a definite one, until you specify exactly when and where he was first dubbed 'Thales', and/or add other identifying descriptions about him and his doings. — Janus
So, I haven't been claiming that any description uniquely determines the referent of a name, although of course it could determine the unique referent of the name, which is a different thing.
— Janus
So it might be worth your setting this out in more detail. — Banno
What if Donald Trump had been born a woman? — Janus
'I wonder whether, if Donald Trump's parents' fourth child had been a girl, they would have continued to have children in the hope of having a second boy.' — andrewk
Oh, sorry. I thought the 'not' was a typo and removed it in a misguided attempt to be charitable. The sex change possibility (or it could just be a woman posing as a man) provides grounds for another useful example. We consider the complete speech act:Actually my example was 'What if Donald Trump had not been born a women" — Janus
My point is that there need be no such thing for us to talk about Thales. Indeed, the sentence "There is no definite description that singles out Thales" is itself about Thales. It's the very same person that Aristotle described, incorrectly. — Banno
No, it's the name that is a rigid designator. Again, a rigid designator has as its referent the very same individual in any possible world in which that individual exists. The rigid designator is not the individual, but the reference - the name. — Banno
'Who is Thales' — Janus
Around and around. Who is the question 'Who is Thales' about?
It's about Thales. — Banno
I think we are talking about two different things. I have said that a definite description does not need to be wholly true to refer uniquely to someone. I think the question about whether successful reference is possible by false description is related, and as I have already said, I am not convinced that it is possible without the person referring knowing something true about the person being referred to, even if that is nothing more than knowing what they look like — Janus
I agree that 'Thales' is not, in the case that the name is being used to refer to the famous Presocratic philosopher, merely an empty placeholder; it does have indeed have a role in the conversation or speech-act in those kinds of cases. — Janus
So there are definite descriptions available (and that are implicit in all our discourse about Thales) and the fact that some of them may be apocryphal is not problematic for our talk about Thales. — Janus
I agree that 'Thales' is not, in the case that the name is being used to refer to the famous Presocratic philosopher, merely an empty placeholder; it does have indeed have a role in the conversation or speech-act in those kinds of cases. — Janus
Then you agree that when it was asked "Who is Thales?", the question was about Thales. So the questioner made reference to Thales without themselves being able to provide a definite description.
That is, it is possible to refer without having access to a definite description. — Banno
And if all of these descriptions of Thales are all of them wrong, but there was such a person? — Banno
I agree that 'Thales' is not, in the case that the name is being used to refer to the famous Presocratic philosopher, merely an empty placeholder; it does have indeed have a role in the conversation or speech-act in those kinds of cases. — Janus
Then you agree that when it was asked "Who is Thales?", the question was about Thales. So the questioner made reference to Thales without themselves being able to provide a definite description.
That is, it is possible to refer without having access to a definite description.
— Banno
Well, if a conversation is about Thales,the famous Presocratic philosopher, then right there is a definite description of who the conversation is about. — Janus
...in asking "who is Thales?" the questioner is assuming that there is a definite description of just who he is, and is asking for it. — Janus
Think about it, if you don't know who is being spoken of in a conversation, how could those who do know (or purport to know) answer your question about who is being spoken of without giving any definite descriptions? — Janus
Isn't it a moot point whether or not the questioner 'successfully referred to Thales'? I can't see that any tangible difference follows from a Yes vs a No answer to the question 'was a successful reference made?' Rather, it's just a question of what words one uses to describe the speech acts. It's what David Chalmers calls a Verbal Dispute - something about choice of words with no actual import.The questioner did not use definite description. The questioner successfully referred to Thales nonetheless. — creativesoul
Isn't it a moot point whether or not the questioner 'successfully referred to Thales'? I can't see that any tangible difference follows from a Yes vs a No answer to the question 'was a successful reference made?' Rather, it's just a question of what words one uses to describe the speech acts. It's what David Chalmers calls a Verbal Dispute - something about choice of words with no actual import. — andrewk
FWIW I regard 'who is Thales?' from an eavesdropper to the conversation as shorthand for:
"Your conversation sounds interesting and, If you don't object, I'd like to join in. I note that you keep on using the word 'Thales' as if it were a name of a person. Is it the name of a person? If so, could you please tell me a little about the person whose name it is, so that I can enjoy your conversation more, and maybe even participate?"
The meaning of that is quite clear, and whether or not the questioner has 'successfully referred to Thales' seems to have no significance. — andrewk
I pretty much agree with andrewk that the notion of "successful reference" is moot or irrelevant. — Janus
Say in our hypothetical conversation the novice has not been able to tell whether Thales is a man or a women, or even a domestic animal or a place. In then inquiring 'What does "Thales" refer to?", would you say she or he has "successfully referred", or even simply referred, to Thales?
'Mistaken' is not a relevant concept in this field. There is no correct and incorrect. There are no proofs of correctness. If there were, Kripke's opinion would either have been proven correct and thereby accepted by everybody that is capable of following logic, or it would have been proven incorrect, in which case no logically competent person would accept it. Since neither of those is the case, it must not be amenable to proof, so 'right' and 'wrong', 'mistaken' and 'correct' are not applicable concepts.Well, in that case, you're both mistaken. — creativesoul
I pretty much agree with andrewk that the notion of "successful reference" is moot or irrelevant. — Janus
Well, in that case, you're both mistaken.
— creativesoul
'Mistaken' is not a relevant concept in this field. There is no correct and incorrect. There are no proofs of correctness. If there were, Kripke's opinion would either have been proven correct and thereby accepted by everybody that is capable of following logic, or it would have been proven incorrect, in which case no logically competent person would accept it. Since neither of those is the case, it must not be amenable to proof, so 'right' and 'wrong', 'mistaken' and 'correct' are not applicable concepts... — andrewk
Sure, if all 'mistaken' means is 'has an opinion that I do not agree with'. If the difference between being mistaken and having a different opinion is not the presence of a proof, then what is it?It quite simply does not follow from the fact that there is no formal proof adequate for showing how you're both mistaken, that you're not, that you cannot be, or that different positions in the field cannot be. — creativesoul
Do you not find it strange then, that Kripke does not mention 'successful reference' in N&N? If you think he mentions it but calls it something different, what does he call it?You're both mistaken if you think and/or believe that successful reference is moot and/or irrelevant to Kripke's lectures and/or many of the historical positions that he targets. — creativesoul
It quite simply does not follow from the fact that there is no formal proof adequate for showing how you're both mistaken, that you're not, that you cannot be, or that different positions in the field cannot be.
— creativesoul
Sure, if all 'mistaken' means is 'has an opinion that I do not agree with'... — andrewk
If the difference between being mistaken and having a different opinion is not the presence of a proof, then what is it? — andrewk
You're both mistaken if you think and/or believe that successful reference is moot and/or irrelevant to Kripke's lectures and/or many of the historical positions that he targets.
— creativesoul
Do you not find it strange then, that Kripke does not mention 'successful reference' in N&N? — andrewk
It is possible that there is such a thing as absolute truth, whereby something can be the case even if nobody can ever know it. I tend not to believe in absolute truth, but let's adopt the concept for the sake of furthering discussion. Then, I can be mistaken if I hold a belief that contradicts the absolute truth. But if that absolute truth is not knowable then nobody is in a position to say definitively that I am mistaken. The only way to demonstrate that a belief contradicts absolute truth is to show that it leads to a contradiction.It still does not follow from the fact that there is no formal proof adequate for showing how you're both mistaken, that you're not, that you cannot be, or that different positions in the field cannot be. — creativesoul
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.