more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 16404

[filed under theme 19. Language / B. Reference / 3. Direct Reference / b. Causal reference ]

Full Idea

The causal theory of reference is criticised for vagueness. Causal connections are ubiquitous, and there are obviously many individuals that are causally implicated in the speaker's use of a name, but they aren't all plausible candidates for the referent.

Gist of Idea

In the use of a name, many individuals are causally involved, but they aren't all the referent

Source

Robert C. Stalnaker (Reference and Necessity [1997], 4)

Book Ref

Stalnaker,Robert C.: 'Ways a World Might Be' [OUP 2003], p.175


A Reaction

This seems to be a very good objection. Among all the causal links back to some baptised object, we have to pick out the referential link, which needs a criterion.


The 11 ideas from 'Reference and Necessity'

Kripke's possible worlds are methodological, not metaphysical [Stalnaker]
'Descriptive' semantics gives a system for a language; 'foundational' semantics give underlying facts [Stalnaker]
If it might be true, it might be true in particular ways, and possible worlds describe such ways [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds are ontologically neutral, but a commitment to possibilities remains [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds allow discussion of modality without controversial modal auxiliaries [Stalnaker]
To understand an utterance, you must understand what the world would be like if it is true [Stalnaker]
To understand a name (unlike a description) picking the thing out is sufficient? [Stalnaker]
If you don't know what you say you can't mean it; what people say usually fits what they mean [Stalnaker]
In the use of a name, many individuals are causally involved, but they aren't all the referent [Stalnaker]
Rigid designation seems to presuppose that differing worlds contain the same individuals [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds allow separating all the properties, without hitting a bare particular [Stalnaker]