Why must it be so difficult? All I said was that what you wrote, as far as I can tell, offers no reason to believe that possible world discourse can do without descriptions, definite and otherwise. — Janus
Kripke on the necessary a posteriori:
"This [lectern] looks like wood. It does not feel cold and it probably would if it were made of ice. Here my entire judgement is a posteriori … but one knows by a priori philosophical analysis … [if] the table is not made of ice it is necessarily not made of ice … we know by empirical investigation that … this table is not made of ice. We can conclude by modus ponens that it is necessary that the table not be made of ice, and this conclusion is known a posteriori, since one of the premisses on which it is based is a posteriori."
-Identity and Necessity — frank
So answer this: if the lectern has a dent from being hit by a hammer, why don't we also know a priori that if it has that dent, it necessarily has it? Why wouldn't that be part of the connotations of 'that lectern'? Quine says it can be. Why is Quine wrong? — frank
The answer is that Kripke does not claim that we can't fix a reference by some contingent property. In such a case, just as Quine points out, this property becomes essential by special bias. — frank
The thesis is that some properties are essential without special bias... — frank
Why must it be so difficult? All I said was that what you wrote, as far as I can tell, offers no reason to believe that possible world discourse can do without descriptions, definite and otherwise. — Janus
I've not claimed that possible world discourse 'can do without' descriptions, definite or otherwise(whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). — creativesoul
It follows from that that we've the strongest possible justificatory ground for concluding that description is not necessary for successful reference within possible world discourse involving both proper names and descriptions. — creativesoul
OK, so do you think "successful reference" in possible world discourse can do without definite descriptions, even though the discourse itself cannot? — Janus
As a result of their being known a priori? — creativesoul
OK, so do you think definite descriptions are not necessary to "successful reference" in possible world discourse, even though necessary to the discourse itself? — Janus
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.