frank

Not entirely. The two just aren't identical. We know this because an individual speaker has flexibility in the use of rigid designator. The knowledge ...

Consider this statement: Armstrong was the first man on the moon. It's not necessarily true because it could have been Aldrin. Compare this statement:...

:up:

It shows that you don't have to have a particular definite description in mind when you use proper names. That's true in the case of counterfactuals. ...

You came up with the Consensus Theory of Truth. Very American of you. Look back at all the examples given either by Kripke or yourself that show that ...

:rofl:

No. I'm saying that Nixon is human-shaped in every possible world that contains Nixon. Knowledge shouldn't be thought of as residing between the ears ...

Somebody needs to know who he is. The ignorant individual speaks of him with dependence on that. So as opposed to thinking every individual must know ...

You may not know Nixon's essential properties. He still has them.

So we're admitting essential properties and there's an obvious expectation of there being a definite description.

Another angle is a condition known as scruples. Some Catholic saints had it. I think it's a coping mechanism. Maybe that author will mention it.

Yes.

They need to know something about Nixon in order to be talking about him. Once they know he was a president, though that may be all they know, they ca...

So a question about "Nixon" is not a question about Nixon. They have to have some idea who Nixon is to ask a question about him.

Is "Nixon" the same thing as Nixon?

Former president.

if they think it's a "what", then they're asking me how to use the word.

How do they know it's a "who" and not a "what"?

You are a particular human. Is that a stipulation in your view?

I said: His demonstrates the first sentence by pointing to aspects of the second.

That an identity is more than just some ideas about what a name means. Your knowledge of identity comes from your involvement with a community that ca...

Sounds right to me.

One thing you and Trump have in common is that if either of you said the sky is blue on a sunny day, I'd be inclined to fact check it. Beware of bias....

It takes a lot longer if you're counting backwards.

If we rely entirely on definite descriptions for identity, we'll end up with an actualist's account: all known properties of an object are necessary. ...

. In the second quote he's complaining about the problems that arise from using descriptions. What seems to be contingent will turn out to be necessar...

I don't think so. He meant any particular thing.

No. In any possible world that includes Nixon, there are characteristics essential to him. He has to be human-shaped, for instance. He can't be a golf...

I would say yes. The actual Nixon, at a certain point, had the potential to either win or lose. I understand what you're saying about reference. I'll ...

Reference? I think it's more about identity. If I write about an alternate Nixon, I shouldn't have any problem picking out which character in my story...

Kripke doesn't suggest that we ever do that. The hyper-anti-essentialist does. Kripke just notes that we do easily speak of alternate Nixons. The conc...

Different biological parents: Kripke would say no. A hyper-anti-essentialist might say yes. Looked different? That just takes a wig and some make-up, ...

So we would change a few things and it's still Nixon. Then we keep changing things and somewhere prior to imagining Nixon as a golf ball, we say that ...

You know Nixon in the actual world a posteriori. And it's true that we know him by his story. So it's troubling that we can think about a Nixon with a...

There's something around the corner that's really cool. If you wait for it, you'll be glad you did.

If someone tells you Nixon could have lost the election, you must already know who Nixon is. And he would have to be something like an American human....

Not if we know it's an oak tree and we're discussing what could have been in regard to "that oak tree." I'm afraid I'm going to have to take your ches...

Seems to have something to do with quantity, that's true.

Maybe it signals an inability to quantify.

A note about Kripke and essentialism: Kripke imagines that when we use a rigid designator X, we zero in on the possible worlds in which X exists (with...

Or every possible world we're examining. Say for Wallows, a tree in his front yard wouldn't be that tree unless it was oak. We won't look at possible ...

I think his point is a little more modest than you would have it. Let's stick to that modesty and we won't have any run-ins with the Other Folk.

Some would say that Becoming is primary and the contradiction of a changing identity is a product of analysis. And this is analytical philosophy. :) D...

Could be. Sometimes the fascism leaks out around the edges. :worry:

Heraclitus: "Can't step in the same river twice." Frank: "Wow! It's the same river, but it changes over time." Banno: "That's fine. It's the same rive...

Right. There's a TV show called The Man in the High Castle in which an alternate reality is depicted. It shows the allies having lost WW2 and North Am...

Yet we do it all the time. That's the problem with the argument from The Way We Speak. We have contradictory customs.

Heraclitus type questions like those Wallows has mentioned. Every little thing seems to be related to every other little thing in the universe. If Nix...

:death:

I had that once while I was awake, except I wasn't naked. I had just had a really harrowing night. I walked around feeling like a ghost. Somebody look...