חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם. דומה למיכי בוט.

Q&A: The Theory of Proper Names

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

The Theory of Proper Names

Question

A proper name (such as Moses, England, Aristotle), in my opinion, points to our instinctive relation to the object that was chosen to be given that name. That relation is basically a concept by which we identify that the person is indeed Moses, the country is England, etc. However, I saw a lecture (link below) that discusses the difference between the theory of Frege-Russell and that of Mill and Kripke. Is there something wrong with the proposal I suggested? Is what I wrote actually Kripke's view, and if not, what is the difference? 
Kripke on the Descriptive Theory of Names – YouTube
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oXBlah06r5g&t=1434s

Answer

I didn’t understand the question. What did you write? Where? Write your proposal here and we can discuss it.
A name is not a concept, so I don’t understand what you are writing here. A name is a word, and the connection between it and the object is conventional. A name refers to the object itself (its essence), whereas descriptions refer to its characteristics (= its form). In my book Two Carts I discussed the difference between a name and a description (the two kinds of reference in Russell’s famous article).

Discussion on Answer

Isaac (2019-05-16)

If people point to a dog and decide to call it “A,” then the way we perceive the dog’s “essence” when it is before us is what we mean when we use the name; that is the meaning of the name. (Some call this simply “essence,” but I prefer to relate to it as the way we instinctively and universally perceive the “essence,” for reasons that would lead us into a different discussion.) That is what I meant earlier; sorry if that was not clear.
What I wanted to ask is whether this view is correct. Is this Kripke’s view, and what is the difference between the view of Frege and Russell and that of Kripke?

Michi (2019-05-16)

As far as I know, Kripke talks about “baptism,” meaning he is a conventionalist. In his view, the name refers to the bundle of properties, and there is nothing beyond them (essence). But this is a memory from many years ago. I’m not sure I’m right.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button