Banno

:lol:

If I have it right, you are saying that the difference between a neo who moves pieces around at random, and a grandmaster, is purely subjective. Well,...

You are off topic. As well as being wrong.

Rubbish. A good knife is sharp. A good chess player at least knows how to move the pieces, and preferably a few decent openings.

To name and posit a variation. Kripke's view of possible worlds is pretty minimalist. So simple "what if..." sentences like "What if I had eggs instea...

Reading-wise, i am at the start of Lecture 2. But I am happy (?) to move back and forward as topics are of interest. Much more could be said of K's vi...

AH! You got it. Cool!

What makes a good chess player is subjective? Nuh.

You want a set of rules for referring. Think on that, and we might move on to Lecture 2.

...Kripke's most quoted.

For me, this point settled the argument. The reference "Aristotle"pick out Aristotle even if we know nothing about him.

And which combination of these descriptions sets out for you without fail the exact person you are talking about? And yet we are talking about one ind...

Yeah. Might leave that one there.

Em. He's been dead this last year. Soup?

I read Kripke before WItti, at least in detail, so that might be right. I don't see any need for a causal theory of reference.

Have I mentioned my friend Paul? The odd thing about Paul is that you have no definite description of him, nor have I pointed to him in a way that pic...

Interesting. I had to be convinced - a very rabbit-was-a-duck experience. I guess that's what is happening here.

Yeah. Nuh. You are not even reading, let alone on the same page.

You haven't looked at this topic much, have you. That you think we are looking for an example of a definite description sorta gives that away. On your...

I suspect that's because you are looking at it wrong.

By stipulation. Banno might have red hair. I don't, but I might have. You see, you already know who I am, without a definite description. A child coul...

But there was another man over there who was drinking champaign. So no, it does not rely on the "over there".

How do you know that?

SO you insist I respond. I wasn't going to bother. Is your point of significance? If so, set it forth. Because your thought remains opaque.

None. Firstly, Banno is a rigid designator. I am Banno in all possible worlds in which Banno exists. Secondly, supposing that some amount of informati...

It seems from what we have read that you are right here. So what are we to make of the Donnellan examples, p.25 & n.? It is apparent that a discussion...

Welcome. So is the suggestion that, ostentation aside, some sort of definite description is needed for a name to pick out its referent?

No; we specify them, we do not zero in. Again, you choose to speak as if there were a kingdom of Possible Worlds, from which we might choose this one ...

And after having gone over this again, we are back to the Metre Stick. Do we move on to that again, or is there more here that needs settling?

But it's also a fact that he might not have been. No - he takes the first order logic of facts and finds a way to use it to discuss possibility and ne...

Is it a fact that someone else might have been president 37?

No. In every possible world. Keep the bishop on the diagonals, Frank.

I think one of the aims here is that Kripke is forcing a wedge between proper names and any associated descriptions. But in attempting to understand t...

Let's go back to a few basics. Something is essential if it exists or is true in every possible world. Something is possible if it exists in at least ...

Hey? Neither Nixon nor the 37th president are necessarily existent - neither must exist in every possible world.

So you are saying something like, since Nixon actually was president 37, no one else could actually have been president 37. But it remains that someon...

Good god - you might as well copy-and-paste the entire text of the book; it is all about essence. Put some effort in.

A property had by only that individual - that is, the property picked out by a definite description.

Don't copy-and-paste at me. Paraphrase or quote the bit you think I should be looking at.

The table and chairs, yes - and this is what I would like to talk about (p. 47 is where it starts, but there is so much more later on). But if being t...

In what way? I can tell someone - a child, perhaps - and isn't that sharing? Don't we share this understanding?

Then in what way would it be a description? Perhaps there is not really such a thing as an essence. Or perhaps the notion has no use.

If an essence is a bunch or properties that some individual must posses in order to be that individual, then isn't the essence a description of the in...

What is an essence?

Could we perhaps adopt a minimalist position, that we can set out at least some of our modal questions and assertions by stipulation? And proceed by s...

SO you understand both my position and Kripke's? Well, set out Kripke's position for us. That's what we are here for,

I have found this game quite addictive. Has anyone else tried it? The answers are somewhere between cogitation and intuition.

A capitalised "Becoming" is hardly common in Analytic philosophy, but rather the obsession of the Other Folk.

This is - or perhaps was - a thread dealing with a particular book. Insofar as the aim was to understand the book, some effort must be put in to seein...