Banno

Well, Kripke agrees with you. But we need more than that you think they are not the same while I think they are. Here's how I understand Kripke's argu...

no, Janus. You have misunderstood definite descriptions from the get go, and wasted much of our time.

And a definite description singles out an individual. The.

No, it isn't. It does not single out ONE THING. Bold, all caps, italic, just to push the point.

Let 'A' name water, and let 'B' name the corresponding chemical... Prima facie, it would seem that it is at least logically possible that B should hav...

So, from this post, it seems to me problematic that Kripke does not go into much detail about the origins of "pain", C-fibres, mental states and so on...

SO the first aspect is the application of the discussion of names to kinds. I mentioned earlier - in pages hidden by the surrounding murk - that this ...

Yeah. Introducing time is just another tangent, taking us away from the point of the book.

Indeed. I'd like to move on to the topic of consciousness, from the end of N&N. This is for me the most interesting part, since I think that Kripke go...

If the question is parsed as "Who or what is being referred to by the name 'Albania'", then what answer will suffice? What answer is correct? Not "Som...

No, it really doesn't. The definition is "The x such that ?(x)" Notice the "The"? That's there because a definite description picks out an individual....

Yep.

not when they discuss Kripke, it seems.

looks fine to me.

You are misusing the term definite description.

And again.

There's your problem.

Then you agree that when it was asked "Who is Thales?", the question was about Thales. So the questioner made reference to Thales without themselves b...

so for you the name “Thales” in the question is an empty placeholder. But if I were to answer that Thales is a Disney character, would that answer you...

Around and around. Who is the question 'Who is Thales' about? It's about Thales. This, despite the fact that the person asking the question cannot giv...

Well, if there is only one individual that satisfies some given description, then that is a definite description. Do you agree? My point is that there...

But not definite descriptions. They do not serve to single out one individual. But "Thales" might. Hence the importance of differentiating a definite ...

The very same one as you. The one these threads are about. That's all that is needed.

The meaning of your paragraph remains oddly opaque.

Well, no, we are clearly referring to Thales. Who is it, about whom we know nothing? Thales. Now I find that utterly convincing. Edit: for the sake of...

Here's the trouble. An hour spent responding to you. And now there are four more replies to deal with. Philosophy is detailed. Seurat did not pain wit...

This. You think that names do not have meanings, but that the reference is determined by a description. Then that description gives the meaning of the...

Perhaps. But not all descriptions are definite descriptions. Context will be sufficient to differentiate the two without any definite description. One...

And in that case I would have misunderstood you. But that does not mean that "Trump" could not refer to Trump. Insofar as you have moved from descript...

See the Thales example. Hell, even the sentence "everything we know about Trump is false" is about Trump...

"...across all possible worlds". You've let "know" creep in here. What's it doing? If you set up a counterfactual scenario involving a man named 'Dona...

But he did exist. That's not difficult. There was a chap named Thales, who people told lies about. And this is a story about Thales, despite our not h...

Thales is the chap who thought all was water. Suppose that he never thought anything so silly. After all, there are so few references to him, and they...

OK, let's try again. I just summarised in my own terms. What do you see are problematic here?

Here's a brief summary of what I think has been going on in N&N. Kripke developed a complete semantics for formal modal logic. In N&N he is examining ...

He appears to continue to think that we must be able to give a description of whatever we wish to name, in order to be sure that names fix an individu...

Like what...

@"Janus" is like a chess player who refuses to keep his bishop on the one colour. Not worth playing the game with him.

OK, golf balls...

Turns out that Kripke disagrees. Nixon could not be a golfball. If he were, it turns out he would not be Nixon. But remember the specific point being ...

Which says nothing more than if the table were made out of something else, it would be a different table. Nothing all that profound or mysterious.

If B is made from A, and C from D, in no possible world is B the very same as C. From a world such that B is made from A, the worlds in which B is mad...

Yep.

p.18-20 and n. Seems to me that this is an admonition for philosophers not to make too much of possible worlds. Not to pose "questions whose meaningfu...

Not all that clear, eh? "Loose and inaccurate" statements can be parsed in such a way that the issue is made clear while removing shadows of contradic...

Can you give me some more? A reference?

Cheers. Because that's the point of this approach to modal logic; to give coherent accounts of modal issues that might otherwise seem intractable. And...

How's that?

@"frank", I wold really like to know what you think of the analysis of Katworld I offered. Do you find it agreeable?

Is it? Ok. But you agree that we do live in it?