Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Writings 19:51-68 (2002)
|Abstract||According to the New Theory of Reference, proper names (and indexicals) and natural kind terms are semantically similar to each other but crucially different from definite descriptions and “ordinary” predicates, respectively. New Theorists say that a name, unlike a definite description, is a directly referential nondescriptional rigid designator, which refers “without a mediation of the content” and is not functional (i.e. lacks a Carnapian intension). Natural kind terms, such as ‘horse’ and ‘water’, are held to have similar distinctions, in contrast to other predicates. However, the New Theory contains some problems related to reference, descriptionality, content and meaning. In view of these problems, it will be argued that the distinctive shared feature of proper names and natural kind terms, while technically corresponding to nonfunctionality, is to be explicated in terms of independence of possible worlds, rather than in terms of reference and content: natural kind terms are world-independent predicates, making “worldless” predications. Just as, say, ‘Elvis’ names Elvis even with respect to “Elvisless” worlds, or, rather, names Elvis independently of worlds, natural kind terms are in an important sense “worldless” as well: to talk about Elvis is to talk about him irrespective of moments of time and possible worlds, and is to talk about a human, also irrespective of moments and worlds, while it is not to talk about, say, a drug-addict irrespective of moments, nor about a singer irrespective of worlds. There is no genuinely timeless and worldless predication of the sort “Elvis is (was) bald”, but there is, it seems, such a predication “Elvis is (was) human”. This notion of independence of times and worlds is detached from those of descriptionality and content mediation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jussi Haukioja (2008). Rigid Kind Terms. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:55-61.
Corine Besson (2010). Rigidity, Natural Kind Terms, and Metasemantics. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
Richard Gray (2006). Natural Phenomenon Terms. Analysis 66 (290):141–148.
Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (2010). Descriptivist Reference From Metaphysical Essence. Dialectica 64 (3):419-433.
Ben S. Cordry (2004). Necessity and Rigidly Designating Kind Terms. Philosophical Studies 119 (3):243-264.
João Branquinho (2003). In Defense of Obstinacy. Philosophical Perspectives 17 (1):1–23.
Mohan Matthen (1984). Ostension, Names and Natural Kind Terms. Dialogue 23 (01):44-58.
Greg Carlson (1998). Names, and What They Are Names Of. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):69-70.
Michael Jubien (2009). Possibility. Oxford University Press.
Michael Devitt (2005). Rigid Application. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):139--165.
Michael Devitt (2008). Reference Borrowing. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):361-366.
Jussi Haukioja (2012). Rigidity and Actuality-Dependence. Philosophical Studies 157 (3):399-410.
Christian Nimtz (2004). Two-Dimensionalism and Natural Kind Terms. Synthese 138 (1):125-48.
Harold Noonan (2010). The Commonalities Between Proper Names and Natural Kind Terms : A Fregean Perspective. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
Alberto Voltolini (2004). Can There Be a Uniform Application of Direct Reference? Erkenntnis 61 (1):75-98.
Added to index2011-05-17
Total downloads17 ( #78,361 of 757,560 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,560 )
How can I increase my downloads?