Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Possibility', 'Scepticism' and 'The Justification of Deduction'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 1. Naming / a. Names
We only grasp a name if we know whether to apply it when the bearer changes [Jubien]
     Full Idea: We cannot be said to have a full grasp of a name unless we have a definite disposition to apply it or to withhold it under whatever conceivable changes the bearer of the name might come to undergo.
     From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.3)
     A reaction: This is right, and an excellent counterproposal to the logicians' notion that names have to rigidly designate. As a bare minimum, you are not supposed to deny the identity of your parents because they have grown a bit older, or a damaged painting.
The baptiser picks the bearer of a name, but social use decides the category [Jubien]
     Full Idea: The person who introduces a proper name gets to pick its bearer, but its category - and consequently the meaning of the name - is determined by social use.
     From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 7)
     A reaction: New 'division of labour'. The idea that a name has some sort of meaning seems right and important. If babies were switched after baptism, social use might fix the name to the new baby. The namer could stipulate the category at the baptism. Too neat.
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 1. Naming / c. Names as referential
Examples show that ordinary proper names are not rigid designators [Jubien]
     Full Idea: There are plenty of examples to show that ordinary proper names simply are not rigid designators.
     From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.1)
     A reaction: His examples are the planet Venus and the dust of which it is formed, and a statue made of clay. In other words, for some objects, perhaps under certain descriptions (e.g. functional ones), the baptised matter can change. Rigidity is an extra topping.
5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / b. Definite descriptions
We could make a contingent description into a rigid and necessary one by adding 'actual' to it [Jubien]
     Full Idea: 'The winner of the Derby' satisfies some horse, but only accidentally. But we could 'rigidify' the description by inserting 'actual' into it, giving 'the actual winner of the Derby'. Winning is a contingent property, but actually winning is necessary.
     From: Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.1)
     A reaction: I like this unusual proposal because instead of switching into formal logic in order to capture the ideas we are after, he is drawing on the resources of ordinary language, offering philosophers a way of speaking plain English more precisely.