Talk:Descriptivist theory of names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

Too short I think..[edit]

I'm surprised how short this one turned out to be. It seemed like it was longer when I was writing it. I'll have to expand a bit.--Lacatosias 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Languages?[edit]

"Hesperus is Phosphorus."

Has anything been said about how these theories propose to deal with translation? Like, "Santa Clause is le pere noel"?


Yes, supposing you did not know that Santa Clause and "Babbo Natale" (I will leave aside "le pere noel" which is a definite description and brings in other considerations) refer to (i.e. designate) one and the same entity. Then the statement that "Santa Claus is Babbo Natale" is a perfectly reasonable, informative and meaningful statment on this theory. For Millian direct reference this represents a serious problem: the meaning of proper names ARE their referents. Saying "Santa Clause is Babbo Natale" and perhaps "Santa Clause is le pere noel" is the same exact thing as saying "Santa Clause is Santa Clause". In a nutshell, the distinction between sense and reference eliminates the problem where a=b is equivalent to a=a by (sort of) postulating two distinct levels of meaning. --Lacatosias 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Whooooooaa!! Sorry about that!! My synaptic connections must be withering away in this heat or something. Santa Clause, of course, does not refer to anything and hence any statement/utterance involving Santa Clause is meangingless for Millian direct reference theorists. Hesperus is phosphorus (the morning star and the evening star) both refer to Venus. So, for a simple interlinguitsic example, let's take "the morning star is la stella della sera" . According to Millianism, this statement is just the useless tautology "Venus=Venus". (Of course, Millians respond by invoking pragmatic --ie.communicative intentions, context, etc--considerations to try to resolve these intuitive weaknesses). But for desciptivism,this is not a problem at all (there are OTHER problems) since "the morning star" and "la stella della sera" have sense (modes of presentation, in the Fregean jargin) as well as reference. Thereofre, although the descripstion "the morning star" and "le stellla..." refer to the same thing, they have different senses. One could know about the sense of one and not know abou the sense of the other (not know that they refer to the same thing). The statement is meanignful becaue it informs someone of the fact that the two terms refer to the samr thing.--Lacatosias 11:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph makes sense?[edit]

The paragraph beginning "In general, descriptivist theories can be formalized ..." makes little sense to me. Looks like something was lost in the editting. --Philogo 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?[edit]

This article had been tagged since 2008 as Original Research, but no rationale for this had been given on the talk page; In reading it I think it's actually not original research, but definitely suffers from a lack of inline citations showing where the examples, discussions etc. are supported by the references. If I'm wrong, please feel free to restore the other template and indicate any problematic statements so they can be sourced or removed. Thanks! BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)