structure for 'Language'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

19. Language / B. Reference / 4. Descriptive Reference / a. Sense and reference

[reference language has two components]

17 ideas
Frege's Puzzle: from different semantics we infer different reference for two names with the same reference [Frege, by Fine,K]
     Full Idea: Frege's Puzzle: If two sentences convey different information, they have different semantic roles, so the names 'Cicero' and 'Tully' are semantically different, in which case they are referentially different - but they are not referentially different.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892]) by Kit Fine - Semantic Relationism 2.A
     A reaction: [this is my summary of Fine's summary] Given the paradox, the question is which of these premisses should be challenged. Fregeans reject their being referentially different. Referentialists reject the different semantic roles.
Frege's 'sense' is ambiguous, between the meaning of a designator, and how it fixes reference [Kripke on Frege]
     Full Idea: Frege should be criticised for using the term 'sense' in two senses. He takes the sense of a designator to be its meaning; and he also takes it to be the way its reference is determined. …They correspond to two ordinary uses of 'definition'.
     From: comment on Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892]) by Saul A. Kripke - Naming and Necessity lectures Lecture 1
     A reaction: Stalnaker quotes this, but seems unconvinced that Frege is guilty. If the 'meaning' largely consists of a way of determining a reference, Frege would be in the clear.
Every descriptive name has a sense, but may not have a reference [Frege]
     Full Idea: It may perhaps be granted that every grammatically well-formed expression representing a proper name always has a sense. But this is not to say that to this sense there also corresponds a reference.
     From: Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892]), quoted by Bernard Linsky - Quantification and Descriptions 3.1
     A reaction: Presumably this concerns fictional names such as 'Pegasus'. It seems to be good simple evidence for the distinction between sense and reference.
Frege started as anti-realist, but the sense/reference distinction led him to realism [Frege, by Benardete,JA]
     Full Idea: In the Grundlagen of 1884 Frege was an anti-realist, but in Grundgesetze of 1893 he is a realist, who has profited by his interim discovery of the sense/reference distinction.
     From: report of Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892]) by José A. Benardete - Logic and Ontology
     A reaction: This is the germ of the new realist philosophy which seems to be growing out of Kripke and co's causal theory of reference. The very notion of reference is realist (hence Russell's realism).
The meaning (reference) of 'evening star' is the same as that of 'morning star', but not the sense [Frege]
     Full Idea: The meaning (reference) of 'evening star' is the same as that of 'morning star', but not the sense.
     From: Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892], p.27)
     A reaction: Max Black translates 'bedeutung' as 'meaning', but nowadays everyone calls it 'reference'. This is Frege's crucial distinction, which greatly clarified analytical philosophy. Nevertheless, is it a sharp distinction? E.g. referring to a fictional name?
In maths, there are phrases with a clear sense, but no actual reference [Frege]
     Full Idea: The expression 'the least rapidly convergent series' has a sense but demonstrably there is no reference, since a less rapidly convergent series (for any given series) can always be found.
     From: Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892], p.28)
     A reaction: A nice example. 'The second Kennedy assassin' has a clear meaning, but does it have a reference? The meaning 'points at' a possible reference. We yet discover an identity.
We are driven from sense to reference by our desire for truth [Frege]
     Full Idea: The striving for truth drives us always to advance from the sense to the thing meant (the reference).
     From: Gottlob Frege (On Sense and Reference [1892], p.33)
     A reaction: As in, we want to know the reference of 'the person who shot Kennedy'. I always perk up if truth is mentioned in a discussion of language, because it reminds us of the point of the whole thing. In 'Is he the best man?' I have the reference, not the truth.
Senses can't be subjective, because propositions would be private, and disagreement impossible [Frege]
     Full Idea: If the sense of a name was subjective, then the proposition and the thought would be subjective; the thought one man connects with this proposition would be different from that of another man. One man could not then contradict another.
     From: Gottlob Frege (Letters to Jourdain [1910], p.44)
     A reaction: This is an implicit argument for the identity of 'proposition' and 'thought'. This argument resembles Plato's argument for universals (Idea 223). See also Kant on existence as a predicate (Idea 4475). But people do misunderstand one another.
By eliminating descriptions from primitive notation, Russell seems to reject 'sense' [Russell, by Kripke]
     Full Idea: Russell, since he eliminates descriptions from his primitive notation, seems to hold in 'On Denoting' that the notion of 'sense' is illusory.
     From: report of Bertrand Russell (On Denoting [1905]) by Saul A. Kripke - Naming and Necessity notes and addenda note 04
     A reaction: Presumably we can eliminate sense from formal languages, but natural languages are rich in connotations (or whatever we choose to call them).
Often reference determines sense, and not (as Frege thought) vice versa [Putnam, by Scruton]
     Full Idea: Putnam argues that, Frege notwithstanding, it is often the case that reference determines sense, and not vice versa.
     From: report of Hilary Putnam (The Meaning of 'Meaning' [1975]) by Roger Scruton - Modern Philosophy:introduction and survey 19.6
     A reaction: Does this say anything more than that once you have established a reference, you can begin to collect information about the referent?
It is generally accepted that sense is defined as the determiner of reference [Katz]
     Full Idea: There is virtually universal acceptance of Frege's definition of sense as the determiner of reference.
     From: Jerrold J. Katz (Realistic Rationalism [2000], Int.xxvi)
     A reaction: Not any more, since Kripke and Putnam. It is one thing to say sense determines reference, and quite another to say that this is the definition of sense.
It is claimed that reference doesn't fix sense (Jocasta), and sense doesn't fix reference (Twin Earth) [Fodor]
     Full Idea: The standard view is that Frege cases [knowing Jocasta but not mother] show that reference doesn't determine sense, and Twin cases [knowing water but not H2O] show that sense doesn't determine reference.
     From: Jerry A. Fodor (The Elm and the Expert [1993], §1.3)
     A reaction: How about 'references don't contain much information', and 'descriptions may not fix what they are referring to'? Simple really.
Referential Opacity says truth is lost when you substitute one referring term ('mother') for another ('Jocasta') [Rey]
     Full Idea: Referential Opacity says you cannot preserve truth if you substitute one referring term for another ('Oedipus desires Jocasta', 'Oedipus desires his mother').
     From: Georges Rey (Contemporary Philosophy of Mind [1997], 2.5.6)
     A reaction: ….That is, in the context of expressing a propositional attitude. 'Oedipus desired his mother' was true. This idea requires some ignorance on the part of the person expressing the thought.
Reference needs truth as well as sense [Hale/Wright]
     Full Idea: It takes, over and above the possession of sense, the truth of relevant contexts to ensure reference.
     From: B Hale / C Wright (The Metaontology of Abstraction [2009], §9)
     A reaction: Reference purely through sense was discredited by Kripke. The present idea challenges Kripke's baptismal realist approach. How do you 'baptise' an abstract object? But isn't reference needed prior to the establishment of truth?
Sense determines reference says same sense/same reference; new reference means new sense [Recanati]
     Full Idea: To say that sense determines reference is to say that the same sense cannot determine distinct referents - any distinction at the level of reference entails a corresponding distinction at the level of sense.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files [2012], 10.2)
     A reaction: Does 'the sentry at the gate' change its sense when the guard is changed? Yes. 'The sentry at the gate will stop you'. 'The sentry at the gate is my cousin'. De re/de dicto reference. So changes of de re reference seem to change the sense?
We need sense as well as reference, but in a non-descriptive form, and mental files do that [Recanati]
     Full Idea: My view inherits from Frege 'modes of presentation'. Reference is not enough, and sense is needed. …We must make room for non-descriptive modes of presentation, and these are mental files.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files [2012], 18.1)
     A reaction: [compressed] Recanati aims to avoid the standard Kripkean criticisms of descriptivism, while being able to handle Frege's puzzles. I take Recanati's mental files theory to be the most promising approach.
Sense is a mental file (not its contents); similar files for Cicero and Tully are two senses [Recanati]
     Full Idea: What plays the role of sense is not information in a file, but the file itself. If there are two distinct files, one for 'Cicero' and one for 'Tully', then there are two distinct (non-descriptive) senses, even if the information in both files is the same.
     From: François Recanati (Mental Files [2012], 3.4)
     A reaction: This may be the best idea in Recanati's book. A sense might be a 'way of coming at the information', rather than some set of descriptions.