"Santa Claus" is name of an imaginary entity. The referent of "Santa Claus" is an imaginary entity.

The referent is the entity. "Santa Claus" picks it out, or at least aims to. I do not car one way or the other whether or not it picks out a unique entity to the exclusion of all others.

Yes, and that entity has features, or properties that are its descriptions about it.

Well, Santa Claus, clearly had no referent. Think about the sentence, "It is raining". The "it" in that sentence stands in as a dummy referent. Now, think analogously to empty names that are "entities" or semantically have content due to their descriptions.

Simple. — Wallows

"It is raining" is one of many appropriate expressions to use when water is falling from the sky.

Elegant.

"It is raining" means that there is water falling from the sky. "It is raining cats and dogs" literally means that cats and dogs are falling from the sky. It is however, just a figure of speech meant to emphasize the amount of water...

The referent is the entity. The invocation of "empty name" has not show itself to be relevant. I'll continue on with my ramblings...

:wink:

The referent is the entity. — creativesoul

So, what's the referent for "Harry Potter"?

Pictures refer... Well. Strictly speaking that's not true. Pictures can be used as a means.

Santa Claus

It's a picture of the referent. There it is. The imaginary entity commonly called "Santa Claus"...

So, what's the referent for "Harry Potter"? — Wallows

Surely, you've seen pictures of Harry Potter.

I find the imaginary entity of an "empty name" much more problematic. It's a bottle. Make your way out.

Surely, you've seen pictures of Harry Potter. — creativesoul

Yes, I have. He's got glasses and has a mark on his forehead. But, you didn't really answer the question, or did you?

The picture refers to Harry Potter. You asked me what's the referent for "Harry Potter"? I answered you. It's not mysterious.

The referent is the entity picked out of this world by the name "Harry Potter". That entity is an imaginary one. It is no less of an entity. It is no less picked out of this world by virtue of name use than "Santa Claus" is.

I've shown you pictures.

Show me a picture, give me an example, of an empty name.

Yeah, but the descriptions, and semantic content was arrived at by J.K Rowling's books on him. I didn't read Harry Potter so I never formed a mental image of him.

Yeah, but the descriptions, and semantic content was arrived at by J.K Rowling's books on him... — Wallows

I agree. None of that is a problem.

Yeah, so the picture didn't come first, although a picture may be worth a thousand words. Still, Harry Potter or Santa Claus, or Pegasus are all empty names by definition of not having a referent.

What are you talking about?

How many more ways can it be shown that those names are chock full of meaning for any and everyone who knows how to use them. including yourself.

The referent is the entity picked out by the name. If that counts as being an "empty name", what on earth counts as not being empty?

The referent is the entity picked out by the name. If that counts as being an "empty name", what on earth counts as not being empty? — creativesoul

Question begging. What's the referent for Harry Potter?

From Wikipedia's entry on empty names:

A theory that became influential following Kripke's attack is that empty proper names, have, strictly speaking, no meaning. This is the so-called direct-reference theory. Versions of this theory have been defended by Keith Donnellan, David Kaplan, Nathan Salmon, Scott Soames and others. The problem with the direct-reference theory is that names appear to be meaningful independently of whether they are empty. Furthermore, negative existential statements using empty names are both true and apparently meaningful. How can "Pegasus does not exist" be true if the name "Pegasus", as used in that sentence, has no meaning?

Harry Potter or Santa Claus, or Pegasus are all empty names by definition of not having a referent. — Wallows

They all refer to their own respective imaginary entities. The entity is the referent, the same way the as entities that are not imaginary are the referents of their namesakes. It is the thing picked out of this world.

Your notion of "empty name" leads to falsifiable claims. I've just shown yours to be false. All names have a referent. That is what makes them names. It's always been that way, and it always will be. Happened way before we began taking account of it.

Do what you wish. Think what you may...

You're employing an inherently impoverished linguistic framework. Don't worry though, you're in good company.

So, your basically assuming that there are no such things as empty names at all?

I could find an article on the flat earth society too... doesn't mean it's worth assenting to.

...your basically assuming that there are no such things as empty names at all? — Wallows

Assuming?

That's a conclusion based upon actual events, and true claims about them.

I'm confused. Empty names are simply defined as proper names without an referent. I've provided examples of Pegasus, unicorns, Harry Potter, even old saint Nick as representative of the class falling under the category of being entities without a referent.

How do you respond to this?

No differently than I already have. Re-read it if you want to lessen the confusion. It's more than adequate. The lid is off. Fly out.

See Wikipedia if you haven't already:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_name

A name is a proxy for that which has been named. That which has been named can then be referred to by name use. The name refers to the referent. It's not a mystery.

What are those names empty of? They are meaningful because those who use them have drawn a correlation between the name and the imaginary entity, the referent, the thing being picked out.

links prove nothing

What are those names empty of? They are meaningful because those who use them have drawn a correlation between the name and the imaginary entity, the referent, the thing being picked out. — creativesoul

Empty of a referent. That's the very definition of what constitutes an empty name. If you disagree with the definition and think that Harry Potter, Pegasus, or Santa Clause have a referent, then explain what they are. You say that the imaginary entity is what makes the name have a referent. I've never heard of talking like this so please explain this process.

I already have.

The notion of "empty referent" carries along with it a definition that conflicts with actual events. All names are proxies for that which carries the namesake. The referent carries the namesake by virtue of it's having been involved in naming practices. That's just how it works.

All names can be used to successfully refer. The entity being referred to is the referent. "Santa Claus" is the name of an imaginary entity. We refer to the imaginary entity by using the name of it.

It's not a mystery.

If the entity being successfully picked out, pointed to, and/or otherwise referred to by the name "Santa Claus" does not count as the referent of the name, then what on earth would it take to be a referent?

I don't see why not. The toddler would not have those specific words, but they would have thoughts that roughly equate to those words or to something similar such as 'That to which I am gesturing...' I suspect the understanding of elementary gestures is built-in rather than learned.

Certainly there is a question as to whether a DD has to be verbal. Usually we think of it as verbal, because, courtesy of Russell, we are used to examples such as 'the first chancellor of Germany' or 'the author of Waverley', but I see no need for it to be verbal.

I've never heard of talking like this so please explain this process. — Wallows

Well... you are conversing with me, ya know?

I tend to stand upon the shoulders of many. No one was completely wrong. No one was completely right. I'm not an adherent to any common philosophical position and/or school of thought.

None of them have gotten thought, belief, meaning, and/or truth right.

You'll have that.