Not to mention, the idea that one can only analyze found examples of sentences, and not constructed ones, is totally asinine. It would be like insisting that one cannot observe natural phenomena in constructed experimental environments, but only must account for what 'naturally occurs' by chance outside of a laboratory.

And this on the heels of your constructing elaborate examples of made-up conversations that have actually never happened.

I'm sorry, this whole thing is just so utterly bizarre.

Andrewk, please look at the title of this fucking article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/11/twitter-might-have-been-named-friendstalker/281380/

Now what is something that is 'not a normal part of language' doing as the headline of an article, said out of the blue?

Another one:

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/audience/david-whitley/os-ae-orlando-name-david-whitley-0622-story.html

"Another theory is that a politician named J.G. Speer loved Shakespeare and named the city after a character in the play “As You Like It.”

If that one’s true, we should be grateful Speer wasn’t a huge fan of “Hamlet” or Orlando might have been named Guildenstern."

[mod edit]

Parents talk about naming their kids all the time, and what names they would have had if such-and-such! — Snakes Alive

Nixon is a family name. It's not a matter of saying I wish I had called my son Nick instead of Dick.

Parents talk about naming their kids all the time, and what names they would have had if such-and-such! — Snakes Alive

And those conversations have context, which makes the meaning clear. That's the whole point. Fish a statement out of its context and stand it up by itself and it becomes ambiguous at best, meaningless at worst.

I suggest you read the posts to which you respond more carefully before firing off responses. I wrote 'in isolation' twice above, and with very deliberate intent, yet you seem to have missed both.

Nixon is a family name. It's not a matter of saying I wish I had called my son Nick instead of Dick. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, that's a very important factor, to which I devoted considerable thought when wondering in what sort of a counterfactual 'Nixon might not have been named "Nixon" ' could make sense. But its importance requires subtlety and thoughtfulness to spot.

I'm using the word 'means' is a term to capture both sense and reference in actual use. The question is why is it necessary in the example being used to replace both instances of the term 'Nixon' with the same meaning? — Isaac

I can't make much sense of the first statement. As far as the question goes, the example shows that the description "the individual named 'Nixon'" does not mean the same thing as the name "Nixon".

Why do you think that both instances of "Nixon" are replaced by the same meaning? I don't even know what to think of that wording. Let's look at another example to clear up matters here...

Nixon could have been named something other than "Nixon".

That makes perfect sense. Nixon could have been named something else. Now, in order for that to have happened, there would need to be other alternative circumstances as well. That doesn't matter here. Those are all stipulated.

For the nuanced understanding...

The second use of the name is in quotes because I am using it as a means of referring to the name and not the individual picked out by the name. The first use of the name is not in quotes because I'm using it as a means of referring to the individual picked out of this world by the name.

The issue I was addressing was whether or not the description "The individual named Nixon" has the same meaning as the name. We can test for that by virtue of substitution.

The individual named Nixon could have been named something other than "the individual named Nixon".

Clearly that is nonsense! We've no choice but to conclude that the description does not have the same meaning as the name. Salva veritate...

"Nixon might not have been named 'Nixon' " is as clear as a bell.
— creativesoul
Not to me.

If I were to hear somebody say such a thing I would ask them what on Earth they were on about. Fortunately, I have never heard anybody say such a thing. — andrewk

You're [mod edit] neglecting to consider hypothetical, possible world, and/or counterfactual discourse. [mod edit]

Wow, you and @Snakes Alive need to chill out against the name calling. Please stop.

The very same statement that is being denied has been used throughout this thread, and in the book that the thread is about. — creativesoul

If I were to hear somebody say such a thing I would ask them what on Earth they were on about. Fortunately, I have never heard anybody say such a thing. And I have only ever seen it written in a context of people arguing over philosophy of language. — andrewk

never — andrewk

heard — andrewk

Wow, you and Snakes Alive need to chill out against the name calling. Please stop. — Wallows

I'll second that. As an aside, I don't see why andrewk's comments, qualified as they are, should be a cause for such consternation.

I've never heard somebody say such a thing but I've written it.

It's such a bad thing too...overtly implied to some uses of specific expressions...

Unless of course it's properly qualified... and my use.

Then, it's just a double standard.

It's only poisoning our own well if some one else notices.

"Nixon might not have been named 'Nixon' " is as clear as a bell.
— creativesoul
Not to me. — andrewk

May I suggest that you learn a more adequate framework?

People talk hypotheticals all the time. Normal people. People talk about "what if"... and then stipulate circumstances alternative to what they believe(assuming sincerity in speech). These are normal everyday people and their language use is no different in basic form than many philosophers'.

Denying that that is the case, whether we're talking about an outright openly expressed denial or a more covertly implied one, is to deny actual events. Any position which denies that much is utterly incapable of properly accounting for actual events.

If there is another position which can yield all the benefit of the aforementioned emaciated ones, but does not lead to the same irresolvable problems, then what possible ground could one offer as reason for maintaining the old?

You appear to be upset about something I didn't write - something like that nobody ever uses counterfactuals. I don't believe I ever wrote such a thing. If I did, it was by mistake and you'll be doing me a much-appreciated service if you can find it and point it out so that I can correct it.

What I did say was that the meaning of a counterfactual is deeply dependent on context, which can be supplied either within the sentence or in the surrounding speech acts. Without that context, ambiguity reigns. 'Nixon might not have been named "Nixon" ' is a highly complex (because it involves a name that was not given to the individual in a naming ceremony) and contextless statement, of a type that I would be astonished to hear anybody say outside of a philosophy of language discussion.

You appear to be upset about something I didn't write... — andrewk

You said that a string of words did not make sense to you. You used that same string of words. You critiqued my punctuation of the same string of words. You charged me with slyness regarding this same string of words...

(because it involves a name that was not given to the individual in a naming ceremony) — andrewk

That's the key distinction that came into my head when reading this. Of course, Richard Nixon might have been named John Nixon if his parents had decided differently... etc. But the same everyday counterfactual can't be applied in saying Nixon might not have been named "Nixon" (By who?). Which is what makes it something you're unlikely to hear and is likely to cause a double-take outside of an explicitly philosophical context.

You critiqued my punctuation of the same string of words. You charged me with slyness regarding this same string of words... — creativesoul

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. My best guess is that it's my response to this: In that post you appeared to wrongly attribute to me the sentence 'Nixon might not have been Nixon' and mock it with an eye-roll icon. I asked you not to criticise me for things I didn't write. If I misunderstood your post and it was not intended for me then say so and I will gladly apologise.

If you are referring to some other interaction then please provide a link and I'll have a look.

Well, @Banno point is still on point. Namely, if we don't call Nixon by the same name, we're still talking about Nixon.

However, I take another step back and ask, that if we're talking about Nixon by assigning a different name, then how is that possible.

I assume the answer is straightforward...

I no longer want anything to do with this thread.

I no longer want anything to do with this thread. — Banno

Hmm, am I to blame or what's the issue here?

You critiqued my punctuation of the same string of words. You charged me with slyness regarding this same string of words...
— creativesoul
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. — andrewk

Here's a bit of refresher...

The 'Nixon might not have been named Nixon' sentence is a classic example of how analytic philosophy often disappears up its own fundament, by agonising over the meaning of a sentence that nobody would ever use, and claiming that the analysis is somehow relevant to how people do use language. — andrewk

That's what you wrote. That is a critique regarding a string of words. Part of that critique claims that that is a sentence that nobody would ever use. That's clearly false. We're all using it.

Another issue is the fact that you've misrepresented the way the sentence is written by someone like myself, and I'm clearly not alone.

Nixon might not have been named "Nixon".

That's the way it is used when drawing a distinction between meaning and referent, name and referent, referent and sense...

You did not put forth an accurate representation of the position you're critiquing.

Here's my problem though:

You claimed that that did not make sense to you.

Tell me, because I evidently missed the class of special kinds of qualification...

How does one validly critique that which does not make sense to one? I mean, charging another with having their 'head up their fundament' is a baseless rhetorical device if and when unaccompanied by understanding and/or valid refutation/objection...

So...

It pissed me off.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. My best guess is that it's my response to this: ↪creativesoul In that post you appeared to wrongly attribute to me the sentence 'Nixon might not have been Nixon' — andrewk

Did I refer to you in that particular post?

No!

I simply showed how careful punctuation can eliminate what otherwise looks like a contradiction.

Part of that critique claims that that is a sentence that nobody would ever use. That's clearly false. We're all using it. — creativesoul

No.

I claimed that nobody outside a philosophy of language discussion would be likely to use it. This is a philosophy of language discussion. Note also that nearly all instances of that word string in this thread are mentions not uses - a critical distinction in this subject area.

You did not put forth an accurate representation of the position you're critiquing. — creativesoul

That omission of the quotes on the second 'Nixon' has already been covered. Did you miss it? I said that my understanding of English usage is that quotes can be implied by the context in instances like that. If your experience leads you to conclude that is not common English usage, just mentally put quotes around the second 'Nixon', as that was my intent.

Here's my problem though:

You claimed that that did not make sense to you.
....
How does one validly critique that which does not make sense to one? — creativesoul

Saying that something does not make sense is a critique. The aim of the 'to me' part is to leave an open mind for a response that is able to make sense of it by explaining it better. Such a response did not occur.

I simply showed how careful punctuation can eliminate what otherwise looks like a contradiction. — creativesoul

No you didn't. You showed how careful punctuation plus insertion of an extra word (the word was 'named') can eliminate what looks like a contradiction. Do you deny that the difference between the two sentences you wrote in that post is more than just punctuation?

Mayth this thread rest in peace.

Part of that critique claims that that is a sentence that nobody would ever use. That's clearly false. We're all using it.
— creativesoul
No. — andrewk

Yes.

The 'Nixon might not have been named Nixon' sentence is a classic example of how analytic philosophy often disappears up its own fundament, by agonising over the meaning of a sentence that nobody would ever use, and claiming that the analysis is somehow relevant to how people do use language. — andrewk

That came first.

That is a misrepresentation of many an analytic...

Baseless rhetoric.

Nixon could have been called something else. Nixon could have had another name. It would have taken all sorts of different circumstances being different. All of that makes perfect sense to someone well-versed in such nuanced language use. Regular people would readily agree even if they did not recognize the consequences that may come to bear by virtue of asserting such a thing. Some folk will unreasonably demand complete knowledge of what that would take.

Those people pull the rug out from under themselves... We need not know every thing in order to know some things...

Stating that "Nixon could have been called something other than'Nixon'", says nothing out of the ordinary.

Stating that "The person named Nixon could have been called something other than 'the person named Nixon'" is total nonsense!

Thus, the only conclusion to draw is that those two expressions do not mean the same thing. They both pick out the same referent. Thus, it is also clear that having the same referent is not equivalent to meaning the same thing, or having the same meaning.