back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 16405

[from 'Reference and Necessity' by Robert C. Stalnaker, in 5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 1. Naming / c. Names as referential ]

Full Idea

If we ask 'what must you know to understand a name?', the naïve answer is that one must know who or what it names - nothing more. (But no one would give this answer about what is needed to understand a definite description).

Gist of Idea

To understand a name (unlike a description) picking the thing out is sufficient?

Source

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

Book Reference

Stalnaker,Robert C.: 'Ways a World Might Be' [OUP 2003], p.176


A Reaction

Presumably this is naive because names can be full of meaning ('the Empress'), or description and reference together ('there's the man who robbed me') and so on. It's a nice starting point though. A number can serve as a name.