[Wittrs] Re: [C] Re: Proper Names --Wittgenstein, Russell, Kripke

  • From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:44:54 -0800 (PST)

(J)

... just got back from North Carolina. It's very late (about 1:45 am here). I 
don't think I can reply to all of your mails tonight. Just read this one. It's 
substantial. But I'm confused on a couple of things. There are times when you 
seem to agree with me but merely criticize my word use. But there are times 
when you seem to be disagreeing. Some comments:

1. I'm not the one who invented the distinction between language games where 
name and bearer are connected and games where they divorce. I got that straight 
out of PI (though I admit I have milked it a bit). There is a fundamental 
misunderstanding here. It's so tough to explain it. You seem to think that the 
presence of the bearer is physically required. To understand this, you must 
abandon the idea of sight altogether. It has nothing to do with that. Nothing 
to do with name and bearer in a spatial proximity (wearing a name tag). It 
isn't a physical assertion.

Here's the idea. It is a LOGICAL quality. Actually, it's enthymematic. (And to 
ward off another tautology sort of problem, all I mean here is it is in the 
nature of an assumption about the quality or nature of the assertion's 
FUNCTION). It is what the assertion is doing. It might actually even be thought 
of as a different behavior. (You are doing something different with the 
name). It ASSUMES an X of N. It's a use of a word that assumes "the bearer 
called N." On bearer assignments, the logic is the X AWARDED the N. The latter 
operates as a title.

Morder. It need not actually exist for one to use its name in the sense of the 
X of N. All that has to happen is that the use of the word carry the cognitive 
task. "What is Mordor?" "It's the place where Sauron lives." Also, "It's at 
longitude and latitude lines x. " Both of these may function as bearer-calls. 
They have the structure the X of N. Now, assume Sauron moves. Where is Morder? 
Depends upon what sense you mean. If you mean the X of N, it has ALWAYS been 
longitude/latitude x. But if you mean a bearer-assignment, you first need a 
description that qualifies (that operates as a rule); "The place where Sauron 
lives" probably works fine (the language culture determines this). Hence, if 
Sauron moves, you might here some say "Morder has moved." That is a particular 
language play that names allow.

Similar: BatCave. If Batman moves to a new cave, where is the BatCave? Depends 
upon whether you mean a bearer-call or a bearer-assignment.  

2. You seem to think that a description is a description is a description. You 
appear to think that being "the eldest daughter of" is no different than being 
"the man who saved the Israelites in the Exodus." This would only be true where 
the the person became known for that description, such that the doing of the 
thing would warrant the assignment of the name. If that ever happens, the sense 
of name is as a bearer-assignment. 

3. We both agree it would be difficult to play bearer-call with Moses. But you 
might be able to if you had enough historical evidence for (a) the existence of 
the person; and (b) the non-existence of the things that can operate as bearer 
assignments. Let's say he is born of person X and Y. Let's say we have 
identified the parents. Let's say we have remains with the name. Let's say we 
also have hard evidence that Bob led the Israelites out of Egypt. And let's say 
we have evidence that Bob was shunned in the telling of stories for political 
reasons. Bearer-call: Moses didn't do it. Bearer-assignment: Bob is Moses. 

4. Planets. All examples are bearer-calls. (Per Wittgenstein, Shipment 
amendable after delivery)

5. Police and name tags. Let's assume you are at a party. Let's assume the name 
tag of one person says "Jack the Ripper" (JR). And another person is named 
"Bob."  Let's assume that Bob is the one who actually killed the people, not 
JR. Who are the police looking for? This is a trick question. If they are 
looking for the person who killed, they are always looking for the X of N, even 
though that could be used for a bearer assignment. This is just like the Sauron 
example BEFORE HE MOVES. So, they are looking for the X who killed so and so. 
They'd therefore be looking for Bob. But if people come to say "Bob is Jack 
the Ripper," they are speaking in the sense of a bearer-assignment.

Meaning is use! (God love our hero)  

Regards.

SW




=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrsamr
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2010