A moniker refers to its antecedent.

So your name is not totally empty. It refers to you yourself.

You have simply chosen to rename yourself.

Aristotle is Anglicized for the Greek name Aristoteles, a man who lived and philosophized during the 4th Century B.C.E. In Greek it means "best of all" or more literally "best end". Aristo- was a common Greek prefix anciently. I do not particularly recall any other Aristotle's besides the philosopher.

So your name is not totally empty. It refers to you yourself.

You have simply chosen to rename yourself. — hks

But, what "Posty McPostface" or "hks" refers to is surely not the same person or obtains to the same person in reality. Does it? Superman and Clark Kent are two different entities (names) even though they "refer" to the same person. One is an alter-ego and the other is just a journalist.

"hks" are my initials. Easy for me to remember. I was named after my father and grandfather. It is definitely not an empty name. Had I become a partner in a Wall Street Firm then my initials would denote me as a VIP in that company.

And Posty McPostface is your moniker. It is not empty.

How do you like my new avatar? It is a bottle of my favorite tequila!

It denotes my personal motto:

"Everyone should believe in something.
I believe I will have another drink."

And Posty McPostface is your moniker. It is not empty. — hks

I disagree. Posty McPostface is simply an online personality I have created. It doesn't denote anything apart from the contextual definition derived through my interactions with you on this forum.

How do you like my new avatar? It is a bottle of my favorite tequila! — hks

I wish I could have some. I like vodka sometimes. Tequila isn't my first choice at the liquor store.

I don't think of you as a fictional character. I think of you as a living persona.

I don't think of you as a fictional character. I think of you as a living persona. — hks

But, surely we don't live on this forum (maybe apart from me). This online persona is just a fiction of your imagination of sorts. The name "hks" is someone who is posting on an online forum, not the same thing as the person who is posting under that moniker?

Vodka is very popular with Russians and as a mixed drink, especially for American females. I think of vodka as a diluted ("cut") moonshine. While vodka can be up to 100 proof (50%) moonshine is 99% (198 proof).

Tequila has a distinct natural flavor to it which I like. I like gin also. It also has a distinct flavor to it.

I come to this forum to learn more about other people's views about philosophy. For example there are those who revere Plato. I myself do not however. I revere Aristotle more.

I come to this forum to learn more about other people's views about philosophy. For example there are those who revere Plato. I myself do not however. I revere Aristotle more. — hks

But, they aren't actual people. They're just constructs of one's imagination, both yours and mine through online interactions and stuff like that. I mean, I don't want to resort to referring to solipsism; but, online life is insulated and detached from the world in many regards.

Vodka is very popular with Russians and as a mixed drink, especially for American females. I think of vodka as a diluted ("cut") moonshine. While vodka can be up to 100 proof (50%) moonshine is 99% (198 proof).

Tequila has a distinct natural flavor to it which I like. I like gin also. It also has a distinct flavor to it. — hks

Personally, all I can afford nowadays is beer. Some cheap malt liquor does the trick; but, I try and stick with something not as cheap as that. I think my next visit at the liquor store will be for some sweet wine.

Whether the object referred to by the name is real or fictional, the name is still given meaning by the existence of that object in our perceptions.

Example: Harry Potter. The name "Harry Potter" may refer to the successful-book-franchise-turned-movie. Or maybe the boy himself: the fictional child of James and Lily Potter. Either way, "Harry Potter" is given meaning by the concept, idea, character, or story entailing it.

This further backed by the fact that the said name is "creative and unique". Your names (hks, Posty McPostface, Nathaniel) are all creative. Like a username, if this name is repeated, find another one. this ensures that the name can only MEAN one character.

Now, are there empty names with no meaning? Yes. For example, Liliabeth. You don't know who Liliabeth, therefore you are incapable of ascertaining its meaning. In your perception, Liliabeth could be anything. A name for a town, a name for a girl, a name for anything at all. Due to this vagueness and your inability to know what the meaning of Liliabeth is, then you could call it an "empty name."

Put simply, in my reasoning, an empty name can have meaning, if one knows what the name denotes or if the name denotes something at all with absolute certainty.

Posty McPostface has meaning to me. It is a witty name and although it has no universal interpretation it does announce to me a certain inquisitive, humourus and linguistically minded thought.

You could well ask about the meaning of Degas’ ballerinas or other works of art. Gleaning meaning makes life gleam. Perpetual gleaning makes life mean/mean. So then we have to glean some more meaning and admire a new gleaming wonder.

The trick is to recognize that all names - even the most seemingly concrete, 'real' instances of them, like Abe Lincoln or Amelia Earhart - 'refer' in the exact same manner as do names like Santa Claus or Pegasus. All names are 'empty names'. There is no difference in kind between the two apparent 'types' of referring. This is because language is entirely indifferent to questions of 'reality' or 'existence': in language, both Pegasus and Lincoln belong to the same existential plane, as it were.

The difference, inasmuch as there is one, lies in our behaviour, and not 'in language'. One can treat names like a set of condensed instructions - the name 'Santa Claus' dictates, to some extent, a set of behaviours - both linguistic and extra-linguistic - which we enact when uttered in this or that context. Similarly with the name Earhart. That one refers to an actually existing person and another to a fictional feel-good figure makes not one bit of difference. So-called 'empty names' are paradigmatic of the function of naming in general, and not an exception to the rule.

They're not "empty names." They simply refer to something fictional and imagined rather than something that exists in the non-mental world (at least not beyond "playing the fiction" a la Santa Claus in a film or at a shopping mall).

Re your username, it's simply an alternate way of referring to you, so that's a different situation.

That philosophers have ever treated this as a mystery is completely absurd.

The question of "how they can have meaning" would only be about having a very wonky theory of how meaning works. Meaning doesn't work via it being necessary that any term refers to non-mental items.

This is reposting two things I recently posted, one just this morning:

===========================================================
What philosophers have historically said about nonexistent things is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, because I'm of the opinion that historically, they've said mostly stupid things in this regard, where they would have been much better off if they'd understood fiction, daydreaming, etc. better, and had a semantics and philosophy of language that didn't foolishly try to avoid psychologism.

One major category of nonexistent objects (and actions, etc.) occur as something we imagine. The "nonexistent" adjective applies to the question of whether they also occur as something in the world external-to-minds. Speaking "truthfully" in this case is only a matter of (a) whether we're accurately reporting how someone was imagining whatever it is, or (b) whether we're getting right what would logically follow from what someone was imagining, per the ideas, concepts, they're employing, as they're employing them; however, when we're talking about someone's imaginings other than ourselves, qua their imaginings, they're always going to be the final arbiter.

So re (a), for example, we can say true or false things about Sherlock Holmes via looking at what Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes--it's something true or false about his imagining per se, and re (b), we can say something true or false about Sherlock Holmes a la, "About the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall, Sherlock Holmes would . . ." (keeping in mind that to my knowledge, no one has ever written a Holmes story about the Brown Lady of Raynham Hall) , via extrapolating from what Doyle and others (including ourselves) have imagined about Holmes, so that we're positing something consistent with that, though the imaginings of particular individuals will always be the final arbiter there. (As again, its simply true or false about their imagining.)

The other major category of nonexistent things, events, etc. is possible things and events, where "nonexistent" refers to the fact that they're possible but not actualized. The arbiter there is simply whether those things could happen given the facts of what the physical world is like, or what logic is like, etc. (There are different sorts of possibility--logical, metaphysical, practical/contingent-to-our-physical-universe, etc.)

There are also was-existent-but-no-longer-are-existent things, or historical things, and what makes a true statement there is, at least hypothetically, uncontroversial.

===========================================================

And re what meaning is/how it works:

===========================================================

Meaning is the mental phenomenon of making what are basically conditional, implicational associations--in other words, both connotational and denotational assocations that mentally function in the manner of "if this <input>, then that <association>." It's important to keep in mind that meaning is not the associations themselves. Non-mentally, there isn't even any way to make an association. Simple correlations can't do it. Instead, meaning is the dynamic, inherently mental phenomenon that is the act of associating. The things associated can be any other mental content--perceptions with respect to any sense (sight, sound, etc.--or in other words re perceptions, we're assigning meanings to external objects and events etc. in the world ), concepts, words a la sounds or symbol/text strings, concepts, etc.

Meanings, as something inherently mental, the inherently mental act of associating, can't literally be made public. They're not identical to sounds we make, gestures we make, strings of letters or symbols, etc. And they can not literally be shared, either in the sense of display, or in the sense of two or more people possessing the same one.

I disagree. Posty McPostface is simply an online personality I have created. It doesn't denote anything apart from the contextual definition derived through my interactions with you on this forum. — Posty McPostface

This only makes sense if, for some unknown reason, you have a belief that people are "only one way." That's hard to even make any sense of conceptually, but it would somehow amount to a belief that people only have one constant aspect to their personality, that they interact with everyone in just the same way, they're always in the same mood, etc.

What would be the unknown (hopefully only to us) reason that you'd believe anything like that?

This online persona is just a fiction of your imagination of sorts. — Posty McPostface

I don't at all have a different personality online than I do offline, by the way. That doesn't mean that I'm "just one way" all the time, but I'm not "just one way" online all the time, either.

all I can afford nowadays is beer — Posty McPostface

Beer is safe and effective when used as directed. But then, so is gin, vodka, whiskey, bourbon, wine, schnapps, ale, rum, benzodiazepines, cannabis, poppy in its various forms, etc.

Really cheap beer, and 3.2 beer just isn't worth the calories. I like a pilsner or lager. IPAs are just too hoppy for my taste. Too bitter for old crank.

The difference, inasmuch as there is one, lies in our behaviour, and not 'in language'. — StreetlightX

But doesn't our naming behavior result from the behavior of what is perceived? President Trump's behavior is different from Santa Claus', and for that reason we consider there to be an actual referent to the word "Trump," thus causing us to behave in a way that one has an actual referent and the other not. Since we behave differently when we consider the word "Santa Claus" then we do when we consider the word "Trump," it seems reasonable that we offer different words for them, namely "imaginary" and "actual." To say there's no distinction between imaginary and actual is itself a metaphysical statement.

All names are 'empty names'. — StreetlightX

This is an overstatement, as it speaks to the noumena. Just because all names can be explained through behavior doesn't mean that there might not actually be a reason our behavior varies when speaking about one sort of thing versus the next. That is, we may treat "Trump" different from "Santa Claus" due to a true metaphysical difference between the two. The best you can say under your theory is that metaphysics is irrelevant to the analysis, not that there isn't a true distinction between what the terms refer to.

I don't at all have a different personality online than I do offline, by the way. That doesn't mean that I'm "just one way" all the time, but I'm not "just one way" online all the time, either. — Terrapin Station

But, surely "Terrapin Station" or "Posty McPostface" don't denote the same person posting under that name? I am Posty, but, I am not Posty. Does that make sense?

Posty McPostface has meaning to me. — I like sushi

Ah, but only to you, Mr. Sushi. It's not a shareable meaning that you or I can discuss at leisure. The meaning is hidden from plain sight.

Whether the object referred to by the name is real or fictional, the name is still given meaning by the existence of that object in our perceptions. — NuncAmissa

So, it's all mental? Otherwise, what is an "object in our perceptions"?

The trick is to recognize that all names - even the most seemingly concrete, 'real' instances of them, like Abe Lincoln or Amelia Earhart - 'refer' in the exact same manner as do names like Santa Claus or Pegasus. All names are 'empty names'. There is no difference in kind between the two apparent 'types' of referring. This is because language is entirely indifferent to questions of 'reality' or 'existence': in language, both Pegasus and Lincoln belong to the same existential plane, as it were. — StreetlightX

I'm not disagreeing, but, you seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Some names have a direct reference. Nonsensical, sensical, and senseless propositions derive their meaning from what reference they have. Think, the present King of France is bald.

But, surely "Terrapin Station" or "Posty McPostface" don't denote the same person posting under that name? I am Posty, but, I am not Posty. Does that make sense? — Posty McPostface

No. :razz:

No. :razz: — Terrapin Station

Hmm, what's the difficulty in stating that I am not Posty McPostface? Posty is just a moniker. The direct referant is lacking. I'm just a figment of your imagination.

What name wouldn't be "just a moniker"? That's what names are.

What name wouldn't be "just a moniker"? — Terrapin Station

Direct referants?

Maybe try an example, because it seems you're forwarding pure nonsense on the face of it. What's an example of a "direct referent" that wouldn't be just a name/just a moniker?

What's an example of a "direct referent" that wouldn't be just a name/just a moniker? — Terrapin Station

Proper names are direct referants. Like, France, the planet Pluto, and others.