Single Idea 5831

[catalogued under 2. Reason / D. Definition / 1. Definitions]

Full Idea

Perhaps the modern view is best expressed as saying that "water" has no definition at all, at least in the traditional sense, and is a proper name of a specific substance.

Gist of Idea

The new view is that "water" is a name, and has no definition

Source

Stephen P. Schwartz (Intro to Naming,Necessity and Natural Kinds [1977], žIII)

Book Reference

'Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds', ed/tr. Schwartz,Stephen P. [Cornell 1979], p.30


A Reaction

This assumes that proper names have no definitions, though I am not clear how we can grasp the name 'Aristotle' without some association of properties (human, for example) to go with it. We need a definition of 'definition'.