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

  • From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:01:16 -0800

> 1. Let me give some better explanation of "bearer-calls" and 
> "bearer-assignments." Bearer-calls are where bearers and their names are 
> always present (together) in the language game. Here we ALWAYS want to 
> identify some person or thing that bears the N in question. It's a person (or 
> thing) quest. The quest can be for something real or fictional. ("This is 
> Mordor"). But what is key is that we are searching for a person, place or 
> thing that is called by the right N. The game is: match the bearer to the N.  
> One wants to say this "feels" like a kind of archeology or an historicism. 
> You look for the X that is bearing your N.
> ============
> SW
>


I think I'm understanding the distinction Sean is making.

When you seek the identity to which a proper name
must attach, that's a kind of questing and/or filtering.
That's a bearer-call.

I have the proper name on a sign at the airport,
where I'm waiting for my party.

Only one person should match the name (even if
more than one person shares that name) as I am
here to meet just that one individual.

Other criteria will narrow the field.  I may have no
idea what this person looks like.

When you assign a name from scratch, that's a
different language game.  That's bearer-assignment.

In terms of ongoing amendments and/or the
unsettled meaning of a proper name, I am
thinking how having a referent is as much a
beginning as a goal.

The form "what was Richard Nixon?" sounds stilted,
as that's not usually what we would ask.

Let's say we already know he was a guy who
became president.

The more usual question would be "who was Richard Nixon?"
and that begets multiple answers on multiple levels.

One answer might be:  "we're still working on that
question".

In that sense, I think knowing the referent and knowing
the meaning, are somewhat distinct.

"Knowing the meaning of" has the connotation of
"knowing the significance of".  But maybe that's what
we don't know, or at least we leave the door open.

I'd say proper names, like any other type of signifier,
are caught up in a web of significance that keeps
their meanings perpetually subject to recalculation.

Having a referent for X doesn't anchor its meaning or,
better, having a referent for X doesn't settle all questions
of what X means.

Perhaps X designates this particular pawn on the
chess board.

However, the meaning of "X" is also affected by the
fact that it's the key piece in some checkmate strategy.

"Having a referent for X does not close the case on
what X means"  is how I should like to put it.

or...

"We have a referent for X and I can give you lots of
data to help you pin point X most definitely, but as
for what X means, the jury is still out on that one."

Isn't this a sensible view too?

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

Other related posts:

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