display all the ideas for this combination of texts
2 ideas
16550 | Direct reference doesn't seem to require that thinkers know what it is they are thinking about [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It may be objected that currently prevailing causal or 'direct' theories of reference precisely deny that a thinker must know what it is the he or she is thinking about in order to be able to think about it. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (What is the Source of Knowledge of Modal Truths? [2013], 7) | |
A reaction: Lowe says that at least sometimes we have to know that we are thinking about, so this account of reference can't be universally true. My solution is to pull identity and essence apart. You only need identity, not essence, for reference. |
9181 | The causal theory of reference can't distinguish just hearing a name from knowing its use [Dummett] |
Full Idea: The causal theory of reference, in a full-blown form, makes it impossible to distinguish between knowing the use of a proper name and simply having heard the name and recognising it as a name. | |
From: Michael Dummett (Frege's Distinction of Sense and Reference [1975], p.254) | |
A reaction: None of these things are all-or-nothing. I have an inkling of how to use it once I realise it is a name. Of course you could be causally connected to a name and not even realise that it was a name, so something more is needed. |