Well, how do you make an abstract descriptor as "paranoia" into a, in a sense, a vivid designator for all Ralphs that posses the attribute of being "paranoid" manifest in his de re statement that his neighbor is a spy? — Wallows
But paranoia is a property of a thing (person)), it's not a name of the thing. How is Ralph's statement "my neighbour is a spy" evidence that he is paranoid? — Metaphysician Undercover
Or, no. De re, Ralph will keep on professing his belief as long as he posses' the quality or trait of being paranoid. — Wallows
Never heard of the Barcan formula? — Wallows
The description of being paranoid wouldn't be a rigid designator then. — schopenhauer1
True, though it might be a vivid designator for any Ralph believing his neighbor is a spy? — Wallows
I don't think "paranoid" is a designator at all, because it refers to a property rather than an object. — Metaphysician Undercover
If this subject professes a de re belief that his or her neighbor is a spy, then isn't that bound to the abstract property of de dicto epistemic concerns about the subject? — Wallows
That is, while what he was stating about them was obviously delusional on the surface, it was derived from factual observation that one could interpret properly, given sufficient experience with his way of describing events. I dont know how that fits in with your 'de dicto' concerns. — ernestm
Now, quantifying into possible world where Ralph, still believes that his neighbor is a spy, then his de dicto "trait/quality/property/attribute" of being schizophrenic (perhaps untreated) will dictate his de re beliefs about his neighbor being a spy. Hence, there is some element of rigidity for all possible worlds where Ralph professes these delusional beliefs. — Wallows
Russell's criticism still applies. Just because he says his neighbor is a spy does not mean he actually believes his neighbor is a spy, even if he is schizophrenic. Ralph could be asserting that because he knows his listener thinks he is schizophrenic, so he states it to satisfy the audience. — ernestm
Yes; but, even given the opacity of determining intent, the conclusion still obtains. — Wallows
One could go in that direction, but it would be more fruitful to consider the diagnosed schizophrenic as being in the ideal position to play language games with his listeners. After all, they don't have much else to do. — ernestm
I’ve read the first 50 pages of Naming and Necessity ... I’ve found it to be a complete waste of time up to now. Does he actually have anything to say or can I expect the same pointless drivel for another 100+ pages? — I like sushi
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.