I don't see why not. The toddler would not have those specific words, but they would have thoughts that roughly equate to those words or to something similar such as 'That to which I am gesturing...' I suspect the understanding of elementary gestures is built-in rather than learned. — andrewk
Certainly there is a question as to whether a DD has to be verbal. Usually we think of it as verbal, because, courtesy of Russell, we are used to examples such as 'the first chancellor of Germany' or 'the author of Waverley', but I see no need for it to be verbal. — andrewk
Think about the sentence, "It is raining". The "it" in that sentence stands in as a dummy referent... — Wallows
If the entity being successfully picked out, pointed to, and/or otherwise referred to by the name "Santa Claus" does not count as the referent of the name, then what on earth would it take to be a referent? — creativesoul
Conclusion:Naming practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference. — creativesoul
Conclusion:Descriptive practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference. — creativesoul
What is the relation between inclusion, necessity, and/or existential dependency? — creativesoul
I'm not sure still what you mean by "entity being picked out successfully" here. — Wallows
Where is the existential dependency for an empty name? — Wallows
If the entity being successfully picked out, pointed to, and/or otherwise referred to by the name "Santa Claus" does not count as the referent of the name, then what on earth would it take to be a referent?
— creativesoul
:wink: — creativesoul
There are no empty names. It is itself the name of a empty category. An empty container called "empty names".
Other than that, the question doesn't make sense to me.
The notion is the result of grossly misunderstanding how the attribution of meaning works. — creativesoul
How do you account for a reference to 'The man next to the window with champagne in his glass', which appears to be a DD that does not use proper names?I object to the idea that definite descriptions are not existentially dependent upon naming practices. — creativesoul
I can't see grounds for your objection here. The toddler will understand a concept that we would express as 'that thing over there' from the gesture and that's all that's needed. They only need the concept, not the words for it, and my fairly wide experience of toddlers is that they do understand the concept.Well, it's a matter of what such rudimentary thought and belief are capable of actually having as their content... — creativesoul
How do you account for a reference to 'The man next to the window with champagne in his glass', which appears to be a DD that does not use proper names? — andrewk
Well, it's a matter of what such rudimentary thought and belief are capable of actually having as their content...
— creativesoul
I can't see grounds for your objection here. — andrewk
It appears our positions are irreconcilable on that particular point.I reject the suggestion on those grounds alone. — creativesoul
How do you account for a reference to 'The man next to the window with champagne in his glass', which appears to be a DD that does not use proper names? — andrewk
...they would have thoughts that roughly equate to those words...r — andrewk
How do you account for a reference to 'The man next to the window with champagne in his glass', which appears to be a DD that does not use proper names? — andrewk
...there is no apparent logical difference between the use of a name like 'Richard Milhous Nixon' to refer to someone and the use of the DD 'The person whose name is "Richard Milhous Nixon" '. Under that approach, use of proper names is just use of a certain type of DD.
What are your thoughts on that? — andrewk
...there is no apparent logical difference between the use of a name like 'Richard Milhous Nixon' to refer to someone, and the use of the DD 'The person whose name is "Richard Milhous Nixon" ' — andrewk
No. "Nixon" refers to Nixon. "The man named 'Nixon'" refers to the man with that name. That he has that name is a contingent fact about Nixon.Both refer to the man named "Nixon", necessarily so. — creativesoul
Yes; but because "The man named Nixon" does not pick out the same thing in all possible worlds, adn hence is not necessary.Both do not necessarily pick out the same referent. — creativesoul
Yes. And that is a fact about Nixon. Indeed, we can only posit that he might have had a different name because we can refer to him with the rigid designator "Nixon". How could we make sense of "The man named 'Nixon' may have had a different name"... Only by indexing it to the actual world: "The man who in the actual world is named 'Nixon' might have been given another name". That sort of index is implied by the very shared language we are using for this conversation.Nixon could have had another name. — 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.