more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
One might say that the word 'I' can only have a person as its reference.
Gist of Idea
Maybe the word 'I' can only refer to persons
Source
Trenton Merricks (Objects and Persons [2003], §2.IV)
Book Ref
Merricks,Trenton: 'Objects and Persons' [OUP 2003], p.50
A Reaction
To infer the existence of persons from this would be to commit what I think of as the Linguistic Fallacy, of deducing ontology directly from language. We might allow (Dennett fashion) that folk categories require the fiction of persons.
| 2965 | For Kant the self is a purely formal idea, not a substance [Kant, by Lockwood] |
| 21368 | The knot of the world is the use of 'I' to refer to both willing and knowing [Schopenhauer] |
| 18289 | Forget the word 'I'; 'I' is performed by the intelligence of your body [Nietzsche] |
| 22419 | 'I' is a subject in 'I am in pain' and an object in 'I am bleeding' [Wittgenstein, by McGinn] |
| 15813 | People use 'I' to refer to themselves, with the meaning of their own individual essence [Chisholm] |
| 6666 | All human languages have an equivalent of the word 'I' [Lowe] |
| 6140 | Maybe the word 'I' can only refer to persons [Merricks] |