Jump to content

User:Philogo/VacuousRefSandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vacuous References/Reference Failure

Reference failure is said to occur when a definite referring expression (ostensibly referring term) fails to refer. Expressions making definite references include: demonstratives, proper names, pronouns and definite descriptions. [1] [2] For example reference failure occurs in the following sentences since their subjects are referring expressions which fail to refer: The King of France is bald. Pegasus does not exist.

The status of the use of a declarative sentence when reference failure occurs has been the matter of debate since antiquity. Problems arise when reference failure occurs particularly in the subject position and particularly when the sentence involves the existence predicate. For example a referential theory of meaning[3] apparently makes it impossible to make a true negative existential claim [4]. If Pegasus does not exist is false on the grounds of referential failure, it follows (by the Law of the excluded middle) that Pegasus exists is true; if alternatively Pegasus does not exist is held to be meaningless, then we cannot meaningfully deny his existence. Non-being must in some sense be otherwise what is there that is not?

blank

[edit]

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/index.html#LogNonObj Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Nonexistent Objects: 3.1 The Problem of Negative Singular Existence Statements ]

Puzzles

[edit]

Puzzles arising include the following[5]

  1. Apparent Reference to Nonexistants. Sentences such as The present King of France is bald and Pegasus is a flying horse appear to be meaningful but the subjects do not exist: Pegasus does not exist and the present King of France does not exist. If the subject of a predicate sentence must exist for the sentences to be meningful, then the two sentences are not meaningful
  2. Negative Existentials Pegasus does not existand The present King of France does not exist appear to be bth true and meaningful; as used in the paragraph above. If the subject of a predicate sentence must exist for the sentences to be meaningful then they are not meaningful and hence not true. If to be meaningful the subjects of the sentences must be about things which exists, then either (a) they are not about Pegasus and present King of France and it is not their existence which is denied or (b) they are about Pegasus and present King of France, and hence they do exist and both sentences are false. Apparently it is impossible meaningfully to deny the existence of anything. See also [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/index.html#LogNonObj Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Nonexistent Objects:

3.1 The Problem of Negative Singular Existence Statements]

  1. Identity ("Frege's puzzle") Hesparus = (is identical with) Phosphorus is apparently meaningful, informative and contingent. Hesparus and Phosphorus denote the same thing (have the same referent), i.e. Venus. If the meanings of proper names, such as Hesparus and Phosphorus their denaotations (referants) then they have the same meaning in which case by Leibniz's principal, they may be substitured salve veritatus so that Hesparus = (is identical with) Phosphorus means Hesparus = (is identical with) Hesparus, and this latter is necessarily true, trivial and non-contingent.

History

[edit]
  • Parmenides reasoned It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to be. [6]
  • Plato in Parmenides attributes to Parmenides the view that If we are speaking the truth, evidently the things we are speaking about must be.[7][8]; and in The Sophist he writes Whenever we make a statement , it must be about something; it cannot be about nothing[9]
  • Gorgias, in On the Nonexistent or On Nature. wrote if the nonexistent exists, it will both exist and not exist at the same time [10]
  • Aristotle held that if Socrates did not exist Socrates is ill and Socrates is well would both be false but Socrates is not ill would be true [11]
  • Frege held that if there is no King of France then The King of France is bald is neither true nor false [12]
  • GE Moore said [13] "And it would seem therefore that there certainly must be such a thing as a centaur, else I could not imagine it"
  • Russell in 1903 wrote [14] "Numbers, the Hoeric gods, relations chimeras and four-dimensional spaces all have being for it they were not entities of some kind, we could make no propositions about them". In 1905 however he held [15] that if there is no King of France then The King of France is bald is false. Russell argued that to assert that the present King of France is bald is simply to assert that exactly one man is presently the King of France and that this man is bald, a conjunction which is false by virtue of the falsity of its first conjunct[16]
  • Quine argued in On What There is [17] that Pegasus does not exist is meaningful and true on the grounds that it can be construed as saying There is a thing that Pegasises
  • Strawson held that utterances of the sentence The present King of France is bald in a world where there is no present King of France are neither true nor false. [18]

Mill

[edit]

John Stuart Mill in A System of Logic 1843 distinguished general names and singular names.

  • "A general name is familarly defined, a name of which is capable of being truly affirmed, in the same sense, of each of an indefinite number of things. An individual or singular name is a name which is only capable of being truly affirmed, in the same sense of one thing. Thus man is capable of being truly affirmed of John, Peter, George and other without assignable limits...But John is only capable of being affirmed of one single person, at least in the same sense... 'The present King of England' is also an individual name. For, that there never can be more than one person at a time of whom it can be truly affirmed, is implied in the meaning of the words." [19]

He also distinguished non-connotive and connotative terms:

  • "A non-connotative term is one which signifies a subject only, or an attribute only. A connotative term is one which denotes a suject, and implies an attribute. Thus John, or London, or England are names which signify a subject only..None of these terms are connotative." [20]

Some singular names , Mill held were not connotative and some were.

  • "Proper names are not connotative' they denote the individuals who are called by them; but they do not indicate or imply any attributes as belonging to those inividuals...But there are other kinds of names, which although they are individual names, that is predicable of only one subject, are really connotative...as for instance 'the only son of John Stiles'; 'the first emporer of Rome'" [21]

Thus Mill held

  • general names, eg 'Man' had a connotation and a denotation
  • singular names/terms which are proper names, eg 'John' have a denotation but not a connotation
  • singular names/terms which are 'connotative individual terms, eg 'the first emporer of Rome' have a connotation and a denotation

blank

[edit]

links

[edit]

Vacuous Names

refs

From "On what there is"; in From a Logical Point of View: Nine Logico-Philosophical Essays; Harper and Row, New York (1953). http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Willard_van_Orman_Quine

Frege, Sense and Reference

Presocratic Fragments and Testimonials adapted from passages in John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy (1892). including The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which the thought exists is the same; for you cannot find thought without something that is, as to which it is uttered. And there is not, and never will be, anything besides what is, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable. For this reason all these things are but names which mortals have given, believing them to be true-coming into being and passing away, being and not being, change of place and alteration of bright color.

John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd edition 1920: Chap 4 Parmenides of Elia


John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd edition 1920: Chap 4 Parmenides of Elia, 85: The Poem

John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd edition 1920

John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd edition 1920 [32]


John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 3rd edition 1920, Chap 4 Parmenides of Elia, 85 The Poem [33]

It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to be.[34]

end ref

wiki links

[edit]

See

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Wolfram, Sybil (1989). Philosophical Logic. Routledge. ISBN 0 415 02317 3.
  2. ^ compare "singular terms"
  3. ^ See Alston, William F (1964). Philosophy of Language. Prentice Hall. pp 12-13 and Russell, Betrand (1903). Principle of Mathematics. Cambridge University Press. Words all have meaning, in the sense that are symbols that stand for something other than themselves. p 47
  4. ^ Rosenburg, Jay F (1971). Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Prentice Hall. page 164
  5. ^ page 13 et seq
  6. ^ Burnett, John (1907). "Early Greek Philosophy".
  7. ^ Plato, Paremenidies, 161e
  8. ^ http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Parmenides
  9. ^ Plato, The Sophist, 262e
  10. ^ "Internet Encycopedia of Philosophy:Gorgias (483—375 BCE), Ontology & Epistemology". Gorgias begins his argument by presenting a logical contradiction, “if the nonexistent exists, it will both exist and not exist at the same time” (B3.67) (a violation of the principle of non-contradiction). He then denies that existence (to on) itself exists, for if it exists, it is either eternal or generated. If it is eternal, it has no beginning, and is therefore without limit. If it is without limit, it is “nowhere” (B3.69), and hence does not exist. And if existence is generated, it must come from something, and that something is existence, which is another contradiction. Likewise, nonexistence (to mê on) cannot produce anything (B3.71). The sophist then explains that existence can neither be “one” (hen) or “many” (polla), since if it were one, it would be divisible, and therefore not one. If it were many, it would be a “composite of separate entities” (B3.74) and no longer the thing known as existence.
  11. ^ Aristotle (350 B.C.E). Categories. p. Section 3 Part 10 (iii). At the same time, when the words which enter into opposed statements are contraries, these, more than any other set of opposites, would seem to claim this characteristic. 'Socrates is ill' is the contrary of 'Socrates is well', but not even of such composite expressions is it true to say that one of the pair must always be true and the other false. For if Socrates exists, one will be true and the other false, but if he does not exist, both will be false; for neither 'Socrates is ill' nor 'Socrates is well' is true, if Socrates does not exist at all. In the case of 'positives' and 'privatives', if the subject does not exist at all, neither proposition is true, but even if the subject exists, it is not always the fact that one is true and the other false. For 'Socrates has sight' is the opposite of 'Socrates is blind' in the sense of the word 'opposite' which applies to possession and privation. Now if Socrates exists, it is not necessary that one should be true and the other false, for when he is not yet able to acquire the power of vision, both are false, as also if Socrates is altogether non-existent. But in the case of affirmation and negation, whether the subject exists or not, one is always false and the other true. For manifestly, if Socrates exists, one of the two propositions 'Socrates is ill', 'Socrates is not ill', is true, and the other false. This is likewise the case if he does not exist; for if he does not exist, to say that he is ill is false, to say that he is not ill is true. Thus it is in the case of those opposites only, which are opposite in the sense in which the term is used with reference to affirmation and negation, that the rule holds good, that one of the pair must be true and the other false. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); line feed character in |quote= at position 557 (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
  12. ^ Noonan (2001). Frege A Critical Introduction. Blackwell. Thus in Frege's view, if France has no King The King of France is bald is neither true nor false, and the same is true of any sentence containing the description the King of France, e.g. Either the King of France is bald or France is a republic {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |First= ignored (|first= suggested) (help)pp 148-9
  13. ^ Linsky, Leonard (1967). Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Routledge. page 3
  14. ^ Linsky, Leonard (1967). Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Routledge. page 2
  15. ^ Russell, Betrand (1907). "On Denoting". Mind.
  16. ^ ">Rosenburg, Jay F (1971). Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Prentice Hall. page 165
  17. ^ Quine, Willard (1953). from a logical point of view. Harper. Chap 1 On what there is
  18. ^ Ludlow, Peter. "Descriptions".
  19. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1843). A system of Logic. George Routledge and Sons 1905.Page 23 Chapter 2, Names
  20. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1843). A system of Logic. George Routledge and Sons 1905.Page 26 Chapter 2, Names
  21. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1843). A system of Logic. George Routledge and Sons 1905.Page 26-27 Chapter 2, Names
  22. ^ "Prosentential Theory of Truth".
  23. ^ Plato. "Sophist".
  24. ^ Plato (370 B.C.E). "Parmenides". {{cite web}}: |section= ignored (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)the one, which is not, partakes, as would appear, of greatness and smallness and equality? Clearly. Further, it must surely in a sort partake of being? How so? It must be so, for if not, then we should not speak the truth in saying that the one is not. But if we speak the truth, clearly we must say what is. Am I not right? }}
  25. ^ Non-existent objects Reicher, Maria. "Non-existent objects". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition).
  26. ^ "The Internet Classic Archive".
  27. ^ "Internet Encycopedia of Philosophy:Gorgias (483—375 BCE), Ontology & Epistemology". Gorgias begins his argument by presenting a logical contradiction, “if the nonexistent exists, it will both exist and not exist at the same time” (B3.67) (a violation of the principle of non-contradiction). He then denies that existence (to on) itself exists, for if it exists, it is either eternal or generated. If it is eternal, it has no beginning, and is therefore without limit. If it is without limit, it is “nowhere” (B3.69), and hence does not exist. And if existence is generated, it must come from something, and that something is existence, which is another contradiction. Likewise, nonexistence (to mê on) cannot produce anything (B3.71). The sophist then explains that existence can neither be “one” (hen) or “many” (polla), since if it were one, it would be divisible, and therefore not one. If it were many, it would be a “composite of separate entities” (B3.74) and no longer the thing known as existence.
  28. ^ http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/f09/semprag1/grice57.pdf
  29. ^ http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/grice.html
  30. ^ http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405106795_chunk_g978140510679517_ss1-137
  31. ^ Strawson, P. F. (July 1950). "On Referring". Mind. 59 (235). Oxford: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association: 332. ISBN 0026-4423. {{cite journal}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  32. ^ Burnett, John (1907). "Early Greek Philosophy". I say I say
  33. ^ Burnett, John (1907). "Early Greek Philosophy". (6) It needs must be that what can be spoken and thought is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for what is nothing to be.
  34. ^ Burnett, John (1907). "Early Greek Philosophy".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Philogo/VacuousRefSandbox&oldid=708310116"