With that correction in italics, your post appears very reasonable.Besides, I just wanted to explainhow and thatwhy I believe that your charge of irrelevance was unfounded. That's been done. — creativesoul
No I acknowledged that DDs are more or less definite. — Janus
Not equivocation, rather allowing for the fact that descriptions can obviously be more or less definite. It's not black and white and there may be disagreement in particular cases as to whether a definite desciption is "necessary and sufficient" to pick out just one entity. Your qualification "purportedly" acknowledges this. — Janus
If you know it's true, should be able to prove that. — andrewk
"Some country over there" is not a DD. Calling it such is equivocating the term DD. — creativesoul
The Modal Argument is simple: descriptivism fails because descriptions aren't usually synonymous with names because they're usually contingent properties.
Since Albania didn't have to be called that, it's a contingent property of Albania. — frank
What would be an example of such a statement?There are all sorts of statements that I know are true but cannot be proven by any means. — creativesoul
I covered that issue in this post.The Modal Argument is simple: descriptivism fails because descriptions aren't usually synonymous with names because they're usually contingent properties.
Since Albania didn't have to be called that, it's a contingent property of Albania. — frank
But once a geographical region has been defined in terms of latitudinal, longitudinal and topographical boundaries and so on and named Albania, that definition which can be given as a more or less precise description distinguishes it more or less definitely from all other geographical region — Janus
Summary: arguments against DDs that don't take account of their period of validity are invalid. — andrewk
It depends on context. — Janus
"Who or what is being referred to by the name 'Albania'?", and looking at it this way no particular entity is being referred to, — Janus
I'm getting the impression this discussion isn't valuable to any of us. — frank
It is necessary in the collection of possible worlds being considered, which is those that split from this at time T2 that is between the naming of the country and the opening of its borders. That's why the question of 'accessibility' of worlds is important. The name 'Albania' is a necessary property of the country in the set of all worlds that are accessible in this particular counterfactual. For a different counterfactual, there would be a different splitting time, and the name may not be a necessary property in the set of accessible worlds for that counterfactual.But it was never a necessary property. — frank
I can only speak for myself, but it's been valuable for me.I'm getting the impression this discussion isn't valuable to any of us. — frank
No, I am straying from the claims that Kripke attributes to descriptivists. Kripke doesn't get to rule on what those claims are. I have said from the start that Kripke misrepresents the descriptivist position.You're straying again from the descriptivist's claims — frank
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.