Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Attributive/referential: difference in reference - attributive "whoever it is" (may not be identified) - referential the identified object.
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
Wolf I 183
Def Referential/Donnellan: is supposed to enable the listener to single out the person the speaker is talking about. - E.g. "The killer of Schmidt is insane": in any case, the person who rioted in court, even if he is not the killer. - Here, empty descriptions do not fail. - ((s) The description may also be wrong, and still identify the person.)
Attributive/Donnellan: "whoever it is": E.g. An absent murderer can be anyone, but definitely the murderer - ((s), the description must be apply). -
I 191
Referential/Donnellan: Here it is probable that the speaker believes that the reference is satisfied. An incorrect description would mislead the listeners. -
Attributive/Donnellan: the same possibility of incorrect description does not exist here: "Whoever it is" cannot be described incorrectly, the speaker believes a disjunction: "him or him or him..." - attributively used descriptions may fail and yet express something true. E.g. "The House of Deputies (correctly House of Representatives) includes representatives of two parties" - No problem, if it is clear what the speaker means, you can correct him.
I 195
Intent/Intention/Meaning/Donnellan: it's not about what someone wanted to say - otherwise you could take any description - nevertheless, the intention decides about referential or attributive use. I 199
Champagne Example/Donnellan: attributively no problem. -
I ~ 202
Referential/Donnellan: could also be called a weak reference: whatever - real reference: attributive. -
I 202
Problem of the Statement/Donnellan: E.g. (Linsky): her husband is kind to her (in the café, but he is not her husband) - referentially true - attributive: if phi, then psi, but there is no phi, then it's not correct to say: he says of him... (de re) - but referential: he said correctly of the so described that he ... ((s) also de re!) - Kripke: precisely not like distinction de re/de dicto - E.g. If the described person is also the president of the college, it is true of the president that he is kind - referential: here the speaker does not even have to agree.
Wolf I 18
Name/Description/Donnellan: a) referential use: the reference can succeed, even if the description is not true: E.g. The man in court is not the murderer, but he is correctly determined as the one who behaves wildly. b) attributive use: "whoever it was" applies if we have no specific person in mind. ((s)> role functional role: what ever it is.)
- - -
Chisholm II M.David/L. Stubenberg (Hg) Philosophische Aufsätze zu Ehren von R.M. Chisholm Graz 1986

Chisholm II 109
Donnellan/referentiell/attributiv/Brandl: lässt sich die Unterscheidung nicht schon damit erklären, dass einmal durch Zeichen, ein andermal durch Sprecher Bezug genommen wird? Nein, dann hätte die referentielle Verwendung nur auf ein Problem der Pragmatik aufmerksam gemacht. Dann hätte Russell seine Theorie nur einfach pragmatisch erweitern können.
Brandl: man kann die Unterscheidung ref/att noch verschärfen, wenn man sie auf genau jene Kennzeichnungen anwendet, mit denen der Sprecher von vornherein klarstellt, dass er sich nicht auf einen ganzen Bereich von Gegenständen bezieht.

K II siehe Wol I
U. Wolf (Hg)
Eigennamen Frankfurt 1993

Chi I
R. Chisholm
Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992

Chi III
Roderick M. Chisholm
Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004


> Counter arguments against Donnellan



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