The nameability of possible objects

From a Logical Point of View 3:14-33 (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Within the general framework of the theory of direct reference, there is no agreement as to whether unactualised possible objects (from now on, possibilia) can be referred to by means of directly referential singular terms (from now on, DR terms). While some have maintained that such a direct reference can be established e.g. via some fixing-reference description (Kaplan, Salmon, and perhaps Kripke himself), others have denied any such possibility. In what follows, I will scrutinise such denials by attempting at the same time to provide some counterarguments to them. Indeed, I believe that possibilia can be referred to directly, primarily if the appropriate fixing-reference description is provided.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,168

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Fixing the reference of theoretical terms.Robert Nola - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (4):505-531.
Direct Reference and Singular Propositions.Matthew Davidson - 2000 - American Philosophical Quarterly 37 (3):285-300.
Direct reference in thought and speech.Kirk A. Ludwig - 1993 - Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal 26 (1):49-76.
Introducing events, successful reference and reference-fixing.Friedel Weinert - 1991 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 22 (1):155-167.
Ficta versus Possibilia.Alberto Voltolini - 1994 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 48 (1):75-104.


Added to PP

3 (#1,314,117)

6 months

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Alberto Voltolini
Università degli Studi di Torino

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references