Comments

  • On Successful Reference
    You don't seem to have ever actually defined "successful reference", but I see no reason to conclude that this can only be done through common language. — Metaphysician Undercover

    The entire OP delineates successful reference. The best reason to conclude that successful reference is existentially dependent upon common language is because there are no actual examples to the contrary.
  • On Successful Reference
    ↪Metaphysician Undercover


    The same standard applies to the OP and your objections to it.

    That's what I'm talking about right now Meta...

    You've yet to offer an argument for the assertion that pointing alone is adequate and/or sufficient for referring. By "alone" I mean something very specific. Pointing by one who has yet to have been involved in either naming or descriptive practices and the result be successful reference(drawing another's attention towards the same thing that the pointing person's is already upon).

    That is what it would take to counter the OP.
  • On Successful Reference
    Showing is not referring. Referring is not showing.

    You're claiming otherwise.

    Need we look at the consequences?
  • On Successful Reference
    The fact remains that referencing is something distinct from naming, describing, or a combination of these. — Metaphysician Undercover

    This is neither true, nor fact.
  • On Successful Reference
    Showing another my cat is not referring to the cat. — creativesoul

    Do you agree?

    "My cat" is not Cookie. My cat is Cookie. "My cat" is a linguistic expression. Cookie is not.

    I do not show you "my cat" if I bring Cookie into your presence. I show you my cat. My showing you my cat does not reference Cookie. My saying her name aloud does. That is true regardless of whether or not she is present, or you are present.
  • On Successful Reference
    OK, let's look at it from that perspective then, one type of referring, but two types of referent... ...it is two different kinds of referring — Metaphysician Undercover

    :yikes:
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Thought better about some of the earlier replies.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    ↪Wallows


    Oh, and I do owe you an apology... Should have taken step or two backwards...
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Semantics matter. But when a framework is shown lacking, "semantics" isn't the sort of response that shows that that lacking had been rightfully grasped or valued.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Some frameworks can properly account for the emergence of thought/belief, meaning, and the presupposition of truth(as correspondence of course!) and others cannot. When this comes to the light of day and one resorts to saying "semantics", there's not much else to say to that person...
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Semantics...

    That is the name of a loosely defined subject of thought/belief. It requires pre-existing thought/belief, because they involve out thinking about what sorts of things are meaningful and what makes them so.

    Semantics involves conceptual schemes/linguistic frameworks. Some have clearly defined terms. Others do not. All require language.

    Meaning does not.

    Reference requires shared meaning. Shared meaning requires a plurality of creatures draw the same correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the aforementioned correlations. Shared meaning does not require language. Semantics does.

    Meaning is prior to semantics. Successful reference is prior to semantics.
  • On Successful Reference
    One is to refer to a physical object, the other to refer to a subject. — Metaphysician Undercover

    That is two different kinds of referents. It is not two different kinds of referring.
  • On Successful Reference
    "Your cat" is not equivalent to my cat. I referred to my cat. My cat has a name. "Your cat" does not.

    I was referring to Cookie. Cookie is my cat. "Cookie" is not. I would not refer to "Cookie" unless I was wanting to draw your attention to the name itself and not the referent. Cookie is the referent of "Cookie".
  • On Successful Reference
    there is another, completely different form of "successful reference", which is to direct one's attention toward a physical object, or physical occurrence, and this is not a linguistic matter at all, it's a matter of showing the physical object, or occurrence, referenced. — Metaphysician Undercover

    What I'm questioning here is whether or not pointing alone, and/or showing alone is referring...

    I don't think it is the same at all really. Related. Connected. Not the same.
  • On Successful Reference
    Imagine you are telling me something about your cat "tigger", You say "tigger is ...". I, not knowing that you have a cat named tigger, say "what are you referring to? — Metaphysician Undercover

    Which means I referred prior to showing. The showing helps to fix the referent. That is to say that my showing you the cat allows you to draw the same meaningful connections between the name and it's referent. Successful reference requires this(shared meaning).
  • On Successful Reference
    The fact remains that referencing is something distinct from naming, describing, or a combination of these. — Metaphysician Undercover

    This needs more than gratuitous assertion. It seems to be a divergence between our views.

    Who is right?

    How do we determine that?

    I say that successful reference is different from showing. Showing another my cat is not referring to the cat.

    What say you?
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    The world could be a much better place...

    That has little to do with Nixon's namesake and more to do with how to sensibly talk about it's being different and what else that would take. Denying possible world discourse shuts the door on taking deliberate well thought action for improvement. It denies a better world by virtue of stifling the vison.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Ostriches...
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Yeah. Adopting those is the only valid method of objection...
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Stating that "The person named Nixon could have been called something other than 'the person named Nixon'" is total nonsense!

    Thus, the only conclusion to draw is that those two expressions do not mean the same thing. They both pick out the same referent. Thus, it is also clear that having the same referent is not equivalent to meaning the same thing, or having the same meaning.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Baseless rhetoric.

    Nixon could have been called something else. Nixon could have had another name. It would have taken all sorts of different circumstances being different. All of that makes perfect sense to someone well-versed in such nuanced language use. Regular people would readily agree even if they did not recognize the consequences that may come to bear by virtue of asserting such a thing. Some folk will unreasonably demand complete knowledge of what that would take.

    Those people pull the rug out from under themselves... We need not know every thing in order to know some things...

    Stating that "Nixon could have been called something other than'Nixon'", says nothing out of the ordinary.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    That is a misrepresentation of many an analytic...
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    Part of that critique claims that that is a sentence that nobody would ever use. That's clearly false. We're all using it.
    — creativesoul
    No.     — andrewk

    Yes.

    The 'Nixon might not have been named Nixon' sentence is a classic example of how analytic philosophy often disappears up its own fundament, by agonising over the meaning of a sentence that nobody would ever use, and claiming that the analysis is somehow relevant to how people do use language. — andrewk

    That came first.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    I'm not sure what you're referring to here. My best guess is that it's my response to this: ↪creativesoul In that post you appeared to wrongly attribute to me the sentence 'Nixon might not have been Nixon' — andrewk

    Did I refer to you in that particular post?

    No!

    I simply showed how careful punctuation can eliminate what otherwise looks like a contradiction.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    You critiqued my punctuation of the same string of words. You charged me with slyness regarding this same string of words...
    — creativesoul
    I'm not sure what you're referring to here.     — andrewk

    Here's a bit of refresher...

    The 'Nixon might not have been named Nixon' sentence is a classic example of how analytic philosophy often disappears up its own fundament, by agonising over the meaning of a sentence that nobody would ever use, and claiming that the analysis is somehow relevant to how people do use language. — andrewk

    That's what you wrote. That is a critique regarding a string of words. Part of that critique claims that that is a sentence that nobody would ever use. That's clearly false. We're all using it.

    Another issue is the fact that you've misrepresented the way the sentence is written by someone like myself, and I'm clearly not alone.

    Nixon might not have been named "Nixon".

    That's the way it is used when drawing a distinction between meaning and referent, name and referent, referent and sense...

    You did not put forth an accurate representation of the position you're critiquing.

    Here's my problem though:

    You claimed that that did not make sense to you.

    Tell me, because I evidently missed the class of special kinds of qualification...

    How does one validly critique that which does not make sense to one? I mean, charging another with having their 'head up their fundament' is a baseless rhetorical device if and when unaccompanied by understanding and/or valid refutation/objection...

    So...

    It pissed me off.
  • On Successful Reference
    I didn't say that you cannot reference through language, I said that language is not necessary. — Metaphysician Undercover

    For any and all?

    Give me an example of successful reference that uses neither naming practices nor descriptive ones.

    Our issue here, as always with you, is a difference in our notions of reference.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    You appear to be upset about something I didn't write... — andrewk

    You said that a string of words did not make sense to you. You used that same string of words. You critiqued my punctuation of the same string of words. You charged me with slyness regarding this same string of words...
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    "Nixon might not have been named 'Nixon' " is as clear as a bell.
    — creativesoul
    Not to me.     — andrewk

    May I suggest that you learn a more adequate framework?

    People talk hypotheticals all the time. Normal people. People talk about "what if"... and then stipulate circumstances alternative to what they believe(assuming sincerity in speech). These are normal everyday people and their language use is no different in basic form than many philosophers'.

    Denying that that is the case, whether we're talking about an outright openly expressed denial or a more covertly implied one, is to deny actual events. Any position which denies that much is utterly incapable of properly accounting for actual events.

    If there is another position which can yield all the benefit of the aforementioned emaciated ones, but does not lead to the same irresolvable problems, then what possible ground could one offer as reason for maintaining the old?
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    I've never heard somebody say such a thing but I've written it.

    It's such a bad thing too...overtly implied to some uses of specific expressions...

    Unless of course it's properly qualified... and my use.

    Then, it's just a double standard.

    It's only poisoning our own well if some one else notices.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    never — andrewk
  • On Successful Reference
    Talking about something does not qualify as successful reference. — Metaphysician Undercover

    This goes against everyday observable events...
  • On Successful Reference
    You see, talking about something (describing), and directing one's attention to the thing being talked about, are two distinct things. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Funny... we're talking about something, and by virtue of that I've directed your attention to conceptions of reference.
  • On Successful Reference
    Pointing without ever having used naming/descriptive practices...

    That's the example needed.
  • On Successful Reference
    ...he was talking... — Metaphysician Undercover
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    "Nixon might not have been named 'Nixon' " is as clear as a bell.
    — creativesoul
    Not to me.

    If I were to hear somebody say such a thing I would ask them what on Earth they were on about. Fortunately, I have never heard anybody say such a thing.     — andrewk

    You're [mod edit] neglecting to consider hypothetical, possible world, and/or counterfactual discourse. [mod edit]
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    I'm using the word 'means' is a term to capture both sense and reference in actual use. The question is why is it necessary in the example being used to replace both instances of the term 'Nixon' with the same meaning? — Isaac

    I can't make much sense of the first statement. As far as the question goes, the example shows that the description "the individual named 'Nixon'" does not mean the same thing as the name "Nixon".

    Why do you think that both instances of "Nixon" are replaced by the same meaning? I don't even know what to think of that wording. Let's look at another example to clear up matters here...

    Nixon could have been named something other than "Nixon".

    That makes perfect sense. Nixon could have been named something else. Now, in order for that to have happened, there would need to be other alternative circumstances as well. That doesn't matter here. Those are all stipulated.

    For the nuanced understanding...

    The second use of the name is in quotes because I am using it as a means of referring to the name and not the individual picked out by the name. The first use of the name is not in quotes because I'm using it as a means of referring to the individual picked out of this world by the name.

    The issue I was addressing was whether or not the description "The individual named Nixon" has the same meaning as the name. We can test for that by virtue of substitution.

    The individual named Nixon could have been named something other than "the individual named Nixon".

    Clearly that is nonsense! We've no choice but to conclude that the description does not have the same meaning as the name. Salva veritate...
  • On Successful Reference
    Yes I read the op, and it seems to me that "reference" is to direct someone's attention, with language or otherwise. The op directs my attention toward naming and describing, neither of which is essential to reference. So I'd say that the op is a failed attempt at directing my attention toward the concept of "reference". — Metaphysician Undercover

    If you have an example of successful reference which does not include what I've set out, I'd like to se it. If you do not, then all you've done is gratuitously assert a contrary position... and a groundless one at that.
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    ...John Kennedy' and 'Jack Kennedy' mean the same thing. — Isaac

    I would bet that "Jack Kennedy" has far more emotional/familial connections to Jack Kennedy and his remaining family than "John Kennedy" does...

    My friends call me "Jack"...
  • On Successful Reference
    You don't seem to have ever actually defined "successful reference"... — Metaphysician Undercover

    Did you read the OP?
  • Naming and Necessity, reading group?
    What is a counterfactual existentially dependent on to successfully refer to it? — Wallows

    One can successfully refer to each and every individual particular conception of counterfactual by virtue of talking about the name(counterfactual) and the definitions/descriptions...
Home » creativesoul