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? — creativesoul

:wink:

Sure. "It" is the subject of that sentence.

I'm just attempting to offer a bit of justification for warning you about the particular framework you were employing...

Think about the sentence, "It is raining". The "it" in that sentence stands in as a dummy referent... — Wallows

No. The term "it" is standing in place for something else(the actual situation, the events at the time of utterance, what's happening), but referents do not do that. Rather, they are the things being stood in place for. They are the things being referred to. They are the things being picked out by...

It's not a mystery.

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. — andrewk

I do not object to the ability of DD to successfully pick a unique 'thing' out to the exclusion of all others. I object to the idea that definite descriptions are not existentially dependent upon naming practices.

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. — andrewk

Well, it's a matter of what such rudimentary thought and belief are capable of actually having as their content...

The reason why not is because it is impossible for such a complex linguistic construct to be formed by a creature who has yet to have been involved in naming practices and/or description. I work from the bare assumption that at conception there is no thought and/or belief.

That's too far off topic, but just wanted to offer a brief answer.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

Surely, you've seen pictures of 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"...

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:

"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.

So "Santa c

Are you actually claiming that "Santa Claus" has no referent?
— creativesoul

Yes. — Wallows

What's being described again? Are imaginary entities somehow not entities?

Are you actually claiming that "Santa Claus" has no referent?

I'm asking you to explain to me what is meant by "empty name"...

I'm asking you to given an example.

Is that your example?

Ok, I guess you can assert that Santa Clause is a plump, elderly man with a white beard who lives in the North Pole and delivers candy, presents, or coal depending on how nice you have been for the past year. All of the "a, who, how's" stand in as the descriptions of the person and what "he" does on Christmas, of giving out presents that time of year. — Wallows

This is an example of an empty name?

Empty of what?

I would caution against such inventions(the notion of an empty name) being used as justificatory ground for much anything at all.

Proper names also (not a feature exclusive to empty names only) hold descriptive semantic content. However, their meaning obtains in the actual world, given through their referent. — Wallows

Set this out.

Just think about it. An empty name only has meaning with respect to its descriptive content because there is no referent. — Wallows

Example?

Could it be that the act of pointing when naming something is a non-verbal way of communicating the words:

. . 'The first object that is intercepted by the line indicated by my finger is named.....' — andrewk

If we're talking about a toddler who is first learning how to do things with and/or use words, that quote above could not possibly be the content of such rudimentary thought and/or belief.

For empty names, yes.
For proper names, no. — Wallows

Well, it depends upon one's terminological framework.

I see no reason to hold otherwise. The referent is the thing picked out to the exclusion of all others. It is the thing being talked about.

How is that not the case? I mean, what framework draws and maintains the distinction you've invoked? Can you show me?

This is in accordance with what seems to be the usual way to characterise things, which is that ostension is different from DD. But recently I've been wondering whether ostension is just a subcategory of DD. — andrewk

Personally, and I think that Kripke would agree, there is no reason to believe that pointing and/or showing another something is capable of successful reference unless it is or has been already accompanied by language use...

There's an issue with incompatibility in my musings.

No one pointed it out. It's an old problem regarding the ambiguity of "necessary" as it relates to existential dependency.

Yeah, I don't know how to proceed with this factoid in mind. It seems like a glaring example, that is brushed aside, of not being able to specify a referent that obtains to the same "entity" (however you define that metaphysically or ontologically, as Kripke seems to be inclined to state that entities exist in only an empirical manner) in (any) possible world. — Wallows

The referent is the entity.

Using descriptive practices without using naming practices...
— creativesoul

Do we actually do this?

Yes, we do.

Does it successfully pick out an individual to the exclusion of all others?

Yes. It does.

Can it be done?

It is, therefore... not only can it be done, it already has been done!

Conclusion:Naming practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference.

There's an 'intuitive' use of the term "necessary" — creativesoul

Let's revisit this in light of earlier revelations...

Some cases of successful reference include descriptive practices without using names. "The man who killed my husband" picks the unique individual out of this world that the speaker believes killed her husband. No proper name included in the example. Naming practices have already had long since begun however.

Naming practices identify referents. Not all identification depends upon description. Description is not necessary for naming, identification, successful reference, and fixing the referent, because all of those happen prior to descriptive practices.

What sense can then be made of the broad brushed claim that successfully picking a unique individual out of this world to the exclusion of all others depends upon description of any kind, definitive or otherwise?

It's simply not true.

Conclusion:Naming practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference.

Conclusion:Descriptive practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference. — creativesoul

Hmmm... Seems to be equal thus far...

Can either 1.) or 2.) be done by a language user that has never used the other?

In other words, can someone who has never used descriptive practices point and name?

Surely they can. They do!

Can someone who has never used naming practices employ descriptive practices?

Surely they cannot! — creativesoul

They are not equal here. Let's compare this bit to the last and see what comes of it...

Descriptive practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference. Can someone who has never used descriptive practices point and name? Yes! Pointing to an individual thing and saying it's name aloud is more than adequate for successful reference. Successful reference is prior to descriptive practice!

Naming practices are used prior to descriptive practices. That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else in any way whatsoever. Some successful reference(the first group) is in no way existentially dependent upon descriptive practices.

That's well worth noting!



What about the other? Let's see.

Naming practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference. Can someone who has never used naming practices employ descriptive practices? No!

One could argue:But toddlers can and do point to a blue ball and say "blue" prior to saying "ball". "Blue" is a descriptive term!

I would say "blue" is a descriptive term. It does not follow that the toddler is using descriptive practices as a means for successful reference unless she is talking about the color of the ball.

We are talking about successful reference. In that light, If she says "blue" as a means for referring to the color of the ball, she is using the term "blue" correctly. If she says "blue" while thinking about the shape of the ball, she is not.

Remember, we're talking about whether or not it is possible to use descriptive practices as a means of successful reference prior to ever using naming practices or descriptive practices.

The only way to use the term "blue" as a means for successful reference, is to use the name of the color to talk about the color.

Remember the above group 'cases' in question...

There are no members in group 2. It's sheer logical possibility alone. Logical possibility alone does not warrant belief. There are no actual cases of a creature using descriptive practices as a means for successful reference doing so prior to their already being involved in naming practices.

Descriptive practices are not necessary for the members of the first group. The first group are cases of successful reference. All successful reference is existentially dependent upon fixing the referent. Descriptive practices are not necessary for fixing the referent.

See what I mean about just taking what he claims at face value and putting it to use?

We look at this world and see whether X identifies a unique individual in it. But that tells us nothing to do with whether X would pick out a unique individual, no individuals, or multiple individuals, in an alternate world. — andrewk

The point is that it successfully refers in this world. It only follows then that either it is capable of successfully referring in some possible world or this world is not possible.

Take your pick.

The larger point, by my lights, is that we start out our endeavor by virtue of establishing what sorts of expressions are used in actual cases of successful reference...

We go from there.

That seems to me to be exactly what Kripke wants to do.

Hmmm... Seems to be equal thus far...

Can either 1.) or 2.) be done by a language user that has never used the other?

In other words, can someone who has never used descriptive practices point and name?

Surely they can. They do!

Can someone who has never used naming practices employ descriptive practices?

Surely they cannot!

Using descriptive practices without using naming practices... — creativesoul

Do we actually do this?

Yes, we do.

Does it successfully pick out an individual to the exclusion of all others?

Yes. It does.

Can it be done?

It is, therefore... not only can it be done, it already has been done!

Conclusion:Naming practices are not necessary for all cases of successful reference.

There's an 'intuitive' use of the term "necessary".

...