creativesoul

Not all successful reference by naming practices picks out living animals Meta. Cookie is my cat though; one of them...

Invoking the subject/object dichotomy results in the inability to take account of successful reference, for it consists of both, and is thus neither.....

Your belief isn't necessary... clearly. Now you're equivocating the term "subject". That's unacceptable.

And yet you speak of her!

This mistakenly presupposes that you must see Cookie in order to focus your attention on her. You haven't and yet you have. Actual life trumps haphaza...

Pay closer attention. I've been answering this question thoroughly throughout our discussion here. "Cookie" is the name of my cat. It's also the name ...

That's not a problem. It's a feature of common language, of name usage. "Apple" refers to several different kinds of things. All of them are referents...

The aim is not to reconcile different positions. Rather, it is to exhaust them all.

No puzzle or mystery... Rather, just a whole lot of incommensurate positions involving meaning, sense, and/or reference, and all that those entail...

Do you realize how self-defeating this is?

First claim is false. The second provides how. Of both objects and subjects...

Referring is referring. A subject is not an object. Subjects and objects are referred to in the manner laid out in the OP. That is two distinct names ...

There is more than one conception of reference. Your disagreement does not render the conception in the OP mistaken. The fact that you work from a dif...

Things that exist in their entirety prior to our account of them are not existentially dependent upon our account. We can get those things wrong by de...

Positing a product of one's own imagination as though it is something that has some kind of justificatory value above and beyond actual everyday event...

The entire OP delineates successful reference. The best reason to conclude that successful reference is existentially dependent upon common language i...

The same standard applies to the OP and your objections to it. That's what I'm talking about right now Meta... You've yet to offer an argument for the...

Showing is not referring. Referring is not showing. You're claiming otherwise. Need we look at the consequences?

This is neither true, nor fact.

Do you agree? "My cat" is not Cookie. My cat is Cookie. "My cat" is a linguistic expression. Cookie is not. I do not show you "my cat" if I bring Cook...

:yikes:

Thought better about some of the earlier replies.

Oh, and I do owe you an apology... Should have taken step or two backwards...

Semantics matter. But when a framework is shown lacking, "semantics" isn't the sort of response that shows that that lacking had been rightfully grasp...

Some frameworks can properly account for the emergence of thought/belief, meaning, and the presupposition of truth(as correspondence of course!) and o...

Semantics... That is the name of a loosely defined subject of thought/belief. It requires pre-existing thought/belief, because they involve out thinki...

That is two different kinds of referents. It is not two different kinds of referring.

"Your cat" is not equivalent to my cat. I referred to my cat. My cat has a name. "Your cat" does not. I was referring to Cookie. Cookie is my cat. "Co...

What I'm questioning here is whether or not pointing alone, and/or showing alone is referring... I don't think it is the same at all really. Related. ...

Which means I referred prior to showing. The showing helps to fix the referent. That is to say that my showing you the cat allows you to draw the same...

This needs more than gratuitous assertion. It seems to be a divergence between our views. Who is right? How do we determine that? I say that successfu...

The world could be a much better place... That has little to do with Nixon's namesake and more to do with how to sensibly talk about it's being differ...

Ostriches...

Yeah. Adopting those is the only valid method of objection...

Stating that "The person named Nixon could have been called something other than 'the person named Nixon'" is total nonsense! Thus, the only conclusio...

Baseless rhetoric. Nixon could have been called something else. Nixon could have had another name. It would have taken all sorts of different circumst...

That is a misrepresentation of many an analytic...

Yes. That came first.

Did I refer to you in that particular post? No! I simply showed how careful punctuation can eliminate what otherwise looks like a contradiction.

Here's a bit of refresher... That's what you wrote. That is a critique regarding a string of words. Part of that critique claims that that is a senten...

For any and all? Give me an example of successful reference that uses neither naming practices nor descriptive ones. Our issue here, as always with yo...

You said that a string of words did not make sense to you. You used that same string of words. You critiqued my punctuation of the same string of word...

May I suggest that you learn a more adequate framework? People talk hypotheticals all the time. Normal people. People talk about "what if"... and then...

I've never heard somebody say such a thing but I've written it. It's such a bad thing too...overtly implied to some uses of specific expressions... Un...

This goes against everyday observable events...

Funny... we're talking about something, and by virtue of that I've directed your attention to conceptions of reference.

Pointing without ever having used naming/descriptive practices... That's the example needed.

You're neglecting to consider hypothetical, possible world, and/or counterfactual discourse.