more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Perhaps the notion of a proper name itself involves essentialism.
Gist of Idea
Maybe proper names involve essentialism
Source
Alvin Plantinga (De Re and De Dicto [1969], p.43)
Book Ref
Plantinga,Alvin: 'Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality' [OUP 2003], p.43
A Reaction
This is just before Kripke's announcement of 'rigid designation', which seems to have relaunched modern essentialism. The thought is that you can't name something, if you don't have a stable notion of what is (and isn't) being named.
| 14642 | Expressing modality about a statement is 'de dicto'; expressing it of property-possession is 'de re' [Plantinga] |
| 14643 | 'De dicto' true and 'de re' false is possible, and so is 'de dicto' false and 'de re' true [Plantinga] |
| 14646 | An object has a property essentially if it couldn't conceivably have lacked it [Plantinga] |
| 14647 | Surely self-identity is essential to Socrates? [Plantinga] |
| 14648 | Could I name all of the real numbers in one fell swoop? Call them all 'Charley'? [Plantinga] |
| 14649 | Can we find an appropriate 'de dicto' paraphrase for any 'de re' proposition? [Plantinga] |
| 14650 | Maybe proper names involve essentialism [Plantinga] |
| 14651 | What Socrates could have been, and could have become, are different? [Plantinga] |