|Description theory: the thesis according to which the meaning of expressions corresponds to the description of the respective objects._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Books on Amazon
KripkeVsdescription theory/Stalnaker: arises from a confusion between semantics and meta-semantics - Anti-essentialism/Kripke/Stalnaker: arises from a confusion between semantics and metaphysics -
purely descriptive language/Stalnaker: if we had such a language, we would have no reference definition of general terms - on the other hand: Reference/causal theory of reference: (as counter-position to descriptivism): tells us how reference is acquired in general - for names as for predicates. The knowledge about reference definition is then part of the language skills.
Def local descriptivism/Lewis/Stalnaker: is simply a way to explain one part of the language by another. ((s) According to Lewis and Stalnaker the only way) - global descriptivism/LewisVs: makes it impossible to explain how statements can be wrong at all - this is Putnam’s Paradox - ((s) then the expressions refer to "which things ever" ). - Then the properties and relations are always that what best makes the theory true - additional condition/Lewis: the simple terms have to split the world "at the joints" - Vs global descriptivism: 1) would be holistic, i.e. what I think dependends on everything else that I think - 2) solipsistic, because depending on my causal relations: in that case "Tullius" means something else for me than for you._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003