The fact remains that referencing is something distinct from naming, describing, or a combination of these. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is neither true, nor fact.

Do you agree? — creativesoul

No I disagree. In the appropriate context, showing someone your cat is referring to your cat.

Showing is not referring. Referring is not showing.

You're claiming otherwise.

Need we look at the consequences?

Until you either recognize, or disprove, my claim that there are two distinct types of referring, your propositions remain meaningless and nonsensical.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249720

The same standard applies to the OP and your objections to it.

That's what I'm talking about right now Meta...

You've yet to offer an argument for the assertion that pointing alone is adequate and/or sufficient for referring. By "alone" I mean something very specific. Pointing by one who has yet to have been involved in either naming or descriptive practices and the result be successful reference(drawing another's attention towards the same thing that the pointing person's is already upon).

That is what it would take to counter the OP.

You don't seem to have ever actually defined "successful reference", but I see no reason to conclude that this can only be done through common language. — Metaphysician Undercover

The entire OP delineates successful reference. The best reason to conclude that successful reference is existentially dependent upon common language is because there are no actual examples to the contrary.

Positing a product of one's own imagination as though it is something that has some kind of justificatory value above and beyond actual everyday events is insane.

When one's notion of successful reference includes, admits, and/or allows it to happen where there has never been naming practices and/or descriptive practices, then one carries an unbearable burden. There are no actual examples of a one creature drawing an other's attention to the same thing when dealing with language less creatures.

If that does not constitute adequate reason to think/believe that successful reference is existentially dependent upon common language then nothing can...

It certainly depends upon shared meaning.

Things that exist in their entirety prior to our account of them are not existentially dependent upon our account. We can get those things wrong by definition alone.

Successfully drawing another's attention to the same thing that one's is already upon is something that happens long before we begin taking account of those everyday events. Successful reference consists of things that exist in their entirety prior to our account of it.

You've gotten that wrong.

Your notion draws a false equivalence between showing and referring. Some cases of successful reference most certainly involve naming, describing, and showing. We can observe that as it is happening. You deny what actually takes place, by definition alone.

I could walk into the room, cat tucked under arm thoroughly enjoying her ears being scratched, and say "Hey Meta, wanna see my cat Cookie?"

Your notion denies that that is a case of successful reference.

Cookie is not under my arm...

The op directs my attention toward naming and describing, neither of which is essential to reference. So I'd say that the op is a failed attempt at directing my attention toward the concept of "reference". — Metaphysician Undercover

There is more than one conception of reference. Your disagreement does not render the conception in the OP mistaken. The fact that you work from a different notion than I has no bearing upon the explanatory power and/or verifiability/falsifiability of the one I'm presenting in the OP.

There is more than one conception of reference. Your disagreement does not render the conception in the OP mistaken. The fact that you work from a different notion than I has no bearing upon the explanatory power and/or verifiability/falsifiability of the one I'm presenting in the OP. — creativesoul

Your OP conflates with ambiguity, two distinct types of referring, referring to a subject and referring to an object. Until you separate these two, providing the necessary distinction between them, (and I demonstrated that this is necessary), your thread will be full of equivocation and confusion. What's the point in proceeding without making clear this distinction?

Your OP conflates with ambiguity, two distinct types of referring, referring to a subject and referring to an object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Referring is referring. A subject is not an object. Subjects and objects are referred to in the manner laid out in the OP. That is two distinct names for different 'kinds' of referent, not different kinds of referring. A referent is what is picked out of this world by the designator/sign/symbol. Names and descriptions are designators.

Objects are named and described, as well as subjects.

Poisoning the well and/or fortune telling aren't acceptable here. If I use the same term in two different senses in the same argument, then we''ll address it accordingly. The baseless charge that it may happen if I do not use your framework is not at all compelling.

The subject/object distinction is utterly incapable of accounting for that which consists of both, and is thus neither... meaning is one such thing. Successful reference is existentially dependent upon shared meaning. Thus, the object/subject distinction cannot properly take account of successful reference for it consists of both, and is thus neither.

First, 1) is impossible, because I cannot direct your attention to something simply by naming it. This would require that you already know the name of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

First claim is false. The second provides how.

Next, 2) is highly unlikely, as you say. So we get to the others, 3-6 which are various combinations of naming and describing, and this is what language use generally is, acts which combine naming and describing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of both objects and subjects...

Talking about something does not qualify as successful reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you realize how self-defeating this is?

There has been much said about successful reference. As I understand it, many a philosophical position diverge at this point. There is a fork in the road. The scope of consequences stemming from one path or another cannot be overstated nor can the knowledge of them be overvalued. I am of the very strong opinion that all actual cases of successful reference share the same core set of common denominators. That core, however, is unobservable. Rather, it can only be arrived at by virtue of careful strong groundwork and subsequent consideration. So... — creativesoul

I cut you off here, because that's a lot of very drawn out, mundane rambling on for I don't know what purpose.

Is there some "puzzle" or "mystery" you're trying to solve in all of this? What puzzle or mystery?

No puzzle or mystery...

Rather, just a whole lot of incommensurate positions involving meaning, sense, and/or reference, and all that those entail...

Different people have different positions, yes. I wouldn't worry about trying to reconcile them. Let's just tackle issues when they arise.

The aim is not to reconcile different positions. Rather, it is to exhaust them all.

Referring is referring. A subject is not an object. Subjects and objects are referred to in the manner laid out in the OP. That is two distinct names for different 'kinds' of referent, not different kinds of referring. A referent is what is picked out of this world by the designator/sign/symbol. Names and descriptions are designators. — creativesoul

The problem I explained to you, is that the same name refers to two kinds of referent. The name "Cookie" might refer to an object, a creature you hold on your lap, or it might refer to a subject, a cat. In this thread, you use "Cookie" to refer to a subject, a cat. You have not used "Cookie" to refer to an object, because you have not shown me that a creature who bears that name even exists, so it is impossible that you have successfully referenced an object named "Cookie".

If I use the same term in two different senses in the same argument, then we''ll address it accordingly. — creativesoul

So tell me, how were you using "Cookie"? Does this name refer to a subject, as you have successfully referenced a subject, or were you using it to reference a real physical creature, in which case your reference has been unsuccessful.

The problem I explained to you, is that the same name refers to two kinds of referent. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not a problem. It's a feature of common language, of name usage. "Apple" refers to several different kinds of things. All of them are referents. "Meta" is the same.

So tell me, how were you using "Cookie"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Pay closer attention. I've been answering this question thoroughly throughout our discussion here.

"Cookie" is the name of my cat. It's also the name of my favorite treat. It's not a cat treat, although Cookie has her favorites too.

You have not used "Cookie" to refer to an object, because you have not shown me that a creature who bears that name even exists, so it is impossible that you have successfully referenced an object named "Cookie". — Metaphysician Undercover

This mistakenly presupposes that you must see Cookie in order to focus your attention on her. You haven't and yet you have.

Actual life trumps haphazard notions Meta... or at least, it should.

It's impossible according to your notion. It's actually happening though. Are the actual events mistaken, or your notion? I'd definitely go with the latter.

This mistakenly presupposes that you must see Cookie in order to focus your attention on her. You haven't and yet you have. — creativesoul

Now you're getting to the point. I have not focused my attention on any physical creature named "Cookie". You don't seem to be getting that. I actually don't even believe that you have a cat named "Cookie". I think you've just brought this idea up, "my cat named Cookie", as a subject for discussion.

That's why we need to distinguish reference to a subject from reference to an object in any attempt to define "successful reference". As I've been telling you, you've successfully referred to a subject (a cat named Cookie) but you have not successfully referred to any real living creature.

Now you're getting to the point. I have not focused my attention on any physical creature named "Cookie". You don't seem to be getting that. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet you speak of her!

I actually don't even believe that you have a cat named "Cookie". — Metaphysician Undercover

Your belief isn't necessary... clearly.

I think you've just brought this idea up, "my cat named Cookie", as a subject for discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover

Now you're equivocating the term "subject". That's unacceptable.

And yet you speak of her! — creativesoul

If that's what you call "successful reference" then I strongly disagree. I can speak about a cat named Cookie till the end of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm referring to any real living animal.

And, if you think that I am referring to a real living animal, your cat, you're delusional because I've already told you that I don't believe you have a cat named Cookie. Sorry if I'm being harsh, calling you a liar, but that's reality.

Invoking the subject/object dichotomy results in the inability to take account of successful reference, for it consists of both, and is thus neither...

The problems you speak of are the consequence of the framework you're using.

And yet you speak of her!
— creativesoul

If that's what you call "successful reference" then I strongly disagree. I can speak about a cat named Cookie till the end of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm referring to any real living animal. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not all successful reference by naming practices picks out living animals Meta. Cookie is my cat though; one of them...

Would you rather talk about my ducks? We have Don Juan, Esther, Hattie, Lily, Fiona, Luis, Rudy, and BlackJack. We have others that we've not named.

Not all successful reference by naming practices picks out living animals Meta. Cookie is my cat though; one of them... — creativesoul

Well, if you want your reference to be successful, I suggest you convince me that you do, in fact, have a cat which you have named Cookie. At this point, I truly believe that this is imaginary, so your reference is far from successful.

You have successfully directed my attention to a subject, a matter for discussion, (an imaginary cat named Cookie) but you have not directed my attention toward any physical object or living creature.

So, I believe that all of your objections have been adequately answered, despite the fact that not all of them deserved to be.

Do you have an actual example of a language less creature successfully referring by virtue of pointing alone?

If not, there's no reason to continue this charade. Nothing you've said here is a problem for the OP.