Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Identification: A) Identification is the equivalence of two characterizations of an object in which new properties may be attributed to the object. B) Identification is the discovery that an object is a particular element from a set of objects. In this case, the number of initially assumed properties of the object may be reduced. See also specification, background, information.
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

Books on Amazon
I, 139f
Identification/Reference object/Intentionality/Geach: Problem: E.g.: "Someone made a derogatory remark about an unnamed person. Mrs. Supanich claims to be that person." - E.g. "Ralph is the person x so that it was the will of the testator that x should inherit his business."
Definition Shakespearian Context/Geach: if any name can be used ("A rose, whatever its name may be, would smell lovely.")
Definition non-Shakespearian context/Geach: not every name can be used because of opacity. - E.g. inheritance: schakespearian. E.g. "Ralph was (one person that) expressly from the testator..." - (here any name can be used). - Even non-extensional contexts can be Shakespearian: E.g. "It is logically and chronologically possible that Caesar was the father of Brutus." - (But not when instead of "Caesar" a designation is used). - We also do not want quantification on "possible names".
I, 145ff
Intentionality/Identification/Intensional Object/Geach: E.g. a fraudster buys a car under a wrong name: Problem: The correct name cannot be assigned. - Solution: identification over time - then ad hoc name possible: "A" ( "Existence introdcution") - "Hutchinson" is not the same person as __ and the plaintiff believed that __ wanted to buy her car - N.B.: wrong: "Hutchinson is the Person x and the plaintiff believed of x that he wanted to buy her car" (then the plaintiff would have lost). - ((s) identification not with "the buyer", then the purchase would have been achieved, but misidentification: then no purchase.)
I 148f
Identity/Intentionality/Intentional Objects/Geach: Problem: de re "in relation to someone .." - "... Hob and Nob believe that she is a witch" - presupposes that one and the same person is meant. - Same problem as "There is a horse that he owes me" (which). - To refer to indeterminate things often means to refer in an undefined way to something specific. - Problem: Quantification does not help: "Hob thinks a witch has blinded Bob's mare and Nob wonders if she (same witch) killed Cob's sow." - The range of the quantified sentence part seems to be fully within the earlier dependent context, on the other hand it covers something of the later context. - This cannot be represented in a logical schema at all. - Problem: Anapher: "she" or "the same witch" is tied to an antecedent: "the only one ..."
Best solution: Hob thinks that the (one and only) witch which is F, blinded Bob's mare, and Nob wonders if the witch who is F has killed Cob's sow. - ((s) additional property F). - N.B.: the sentence is true if a suitable interpretation of the property F is true. - ((s) Otherwise the sentence is false because of the non-existence of witches.)

Gea I
P.T. Geach
Logic Matters Oxford 1972

> Counter arguments against Geach

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-26