Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (2):129–146 (2004)
|Abstract||In this paper I examine two ways of defining the rigidity of general terms. First I discuss the view that rigid general terms express essential properties. I argue that the view is ultimately unsatisfactory, although not on the basis of the standard objections raised against it. I then discuss the characterisation in terms of sameness of designation in every possible world. I defend that view from two objections but I argue that the approach, although basically right, should be interpreted cautiously|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ilhan Inan (2008). Rigid General Terms and Essential Predicates. Philosophical Studies 140 (2):213 - 228.
Jussi Haukioja (2006). Proto-Rigidity. Synthese 150 (2):155 - 169.
Arthur Sullivan (2007). Rigid Designation and Semantic Structure. Philosophers' Imprint 7 (6):1-22.
Mario Gómez-Torrente (2006). Rigidity and Essentiality. Mind 115 (458):227-260.
Jussi Haukioja (2012). Rigidity and Actuality-Dependence. Philosophical Studies 157 (3):399-410.
Genoveva Martí (1998). Rigidity and the Description of Counterfactual Situations. Theoria 13 (3):477-490.
Dan López de Sa (2007). Rigidity, General Terms, and Trivialization. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 107 (1pt1):117-123.
Stephen P. Schwartz (2002). Kinds, General Terms, and Rigidity: A Reply to LaPorte. Philosophical Studies 109 (3):265 - 277.
Corine Besson (2010). Rigidity, Natural Kind Terms, and Metasemantics. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #40,850 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,722 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?