It is perhaps true that any particular definite description of Donald Trump could turn out to be false. But all of them could not be (given that the character we know as Donald Trump is not a CGI, as per the example I gave earlier). — Janus
The other probelm is that if just start talking about somenone named Donald Trump outside of any pre-established context you might assume that i am speaking about the Donald Trump who is best known as the current POTUS, whereas as I might be talking about another Donald Trump who was born a woman but underwent a sex-change. — Janus
But he did exist. — Banno
Hell, even the sentence "everything we know about Trump is false" is about Trump... — Banno
You've let "know" creep in here. What's it doing? If you set up a counterfactual scenario involving a man named 'Donald Trump', then it is about the Donald Trump to whom you refer. That I don't know him does not change that. — Banno
That's not difficult. There was a chap named Thales, who people told lies about. And this is a story about Thales, despite our not having definite description of him. — Banno
Every description could not be false; it must mean at minimum that there was a man who was named Thales about whom many stories abound but nothing is known other than that he lived in some more or less definite area as some more or less definite time. — Janus
...and that contradicts your theory, because it is about Thales, and yet we have no definite description of him. — Banno
But crucially, not a definite description. It does not single him out, at least not without the circularity of "Thales" is the man named Thales. — Banno
If even those descriptions were false, then it could not mean anything to say that Thales had actually existed. — Janus
Again, you are asserting this without argument.
It seems, piecing it together, that you want to assert that if we know nothing about Thales, then we have no reason to think that he exists. But of course, we have no reason to think that he did not exist, despite our not being correct about anything we know about him
Same goes for Job, Noah, Jonah, and so on. That what we think we know about them might be false, simple does not imply that they do not exist.
And in the end, if you continue to insist that it does, you are just wrong. — Banno
How do you know which Donald Trump I refer to in each case? I say you know because each implies a description. — Janus
I don't even know what it could mean to say that the meaning of a name is given by an associated description. Names have references, not meanings. The references of names are determined by descriptions as a I showed in the examples above. — Janus
Perhaps. But not all descriptions are definite descriptions. Context will be sufficient to differentiate the two without any definite description.
One of the issues hereabouts is a failure to differentiate clearly between descriptions and definite descriptions. — Banno
Anyway, I have provided this in good faith. I'm happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood something, but please don't just keep saying that I have not understood, and directing me to read Kripke again. Instead explain in you own words just where you think I am going wrong. If you can't or won't do that then that is basically the end of the discussion. — Janus
This.
You think that names do not have meanings, but that the reference is determined by a description.
Then that description gives the meaning of the name, doesn't it? That's the view of Russel, Searle and so on. Your view here is quite unclear.
Which example? There have been so many. — Banno
Well, no, we are clearly referring to Thales. Who is it, about whom we know nothing? Thales.In any case, if he did exist, and if everything else we know about him is false, then we have no idea who we are referring to. — Janus
Here's the trouble. An hour spent responding to you. And now there are four more replies to deal with.
Philosophy is detailed. Seurat did not pain with a roller. — Banno
No, I odn't believe that a description that determines the referent of name "give the meaning of the name" because there could be countless other descriptions that also determine the referent of a name. So, I haven't been claiming that any description uniquely determines the referent of a name, although of course it could determine the unique referent of the name, which is a different thing. — Janus
You are right to point out the conflation of true/false descriptions. Definite ones must be true, if I understand correctly. — creativesoul
Well, even those are descriptions. — Janus
So, I haven't been claiming that any description uniquely determines the referent of a name, although of course it could determine the unique referent of the name, which is a different thing. — Janus
...the point is not that definite descriptions must be true, but that they are definite if they don't apply to anyone else... — Janus
The very same one as you. The one these threads are about. That's all that is needed. — Banno
But not definite descriptions. They do not serve to single out one individual. But "Thales" might. — Banno
I find that examples like these highlight the inadequacy of trying to analyse parts of speech rather than entire speech acts, and that approaching it correctly (according to me) provides both a defence and a criticism of Kripke's approach. A defence, because some of his examples of how he sees his theory working, that appear nonsensical to many, can be made sensible when analysed as part of a complete speech act, and a criticism because the examples he uses to attempt to demonstrate the inadequacy of descriptivism also rely on analysing a reference out of the context of the speech act in which it occurs.What if Donald Trump had not been POTUS?
What if Donald Trump had been born a woman? — 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.