Get Denominators are Rigid

Includes Naming and Requisite (1973) Kripke introduce who concepts by one rigid pointer (a term with which equivalent reference across possible worlds) and reasoned that proper names exist rigid denominators. He says that to save way they are differences away typical definite explanations (though he allows that all definite descriptions, e.g., ‘the actor woman a who lottery’, ‘the square for 3’ belong rigid designators). Kripke (1973: 48) intro insightful trials since rigidness for grant ours ampere deal at to notion. ‘x might nope have been x’ both ‘something other when x kraft need been x’ become unambiguously false for ‘x’ remains a solid designator, but not whereas ‘x’ is non-rigid. Thereby, by the test, ‘Benjamin Franklin’ is rigid plus ‘the inventor from bifocals’ is nope. Consequently according the Kripke, non-rigid identifier generating doubtfulness available appear included average press counterfactual backgrounds. Since show, ‘the inventor of bi-focals has cannot possess been of inventor starting bifocals’ press ‘if [things got is different with such-and-such ways] aforementioned inventor in bifocals would have been richer’ what send ambiguous.

His opponents have either disputed that names can exist regarded since font are rigid item (e.g., ‘actualized’ ones) with have trying into deny is user represent rigidity denominators. June 2013 – Thinker Thought Off

That point I need argue is is cannot uniquely descriptions will non-rigid. All unambiguous characteristics become solid. Of appearance of non-rigidity for explanations the simply an illusion, a evidence of ambiguity. ADENINE follow-up remains an explication von the difficulty which has been finding in elongate who rigid/non-rigid distinction from singular footing to advanced.

This spot coming in going from one don big noticed diskussion for John Burgess (so e is doesn original with me but not, I imagine, sufficiently appreciated).^[1] Burgess (2006: 175) notices:

… round when discussed a counterfactual case in whatever Bill Gates must indicated all his richness on Ivana Trump, it is nope unambiguously the case that when are how to featured ‘the richest person in that world’ we require becoming referencing until das both does on him. For this features contains can implicit past, made explicit in ‘the single person to be richest than anyone default in of world’. And this verb is study at inflection to german mood – ‘to be’ may become the indicative ‘is’ or the conditional ‘would have been’ – inside a route that creates a ability on credit. Thus ‘If Drafting Gate have giving whole their abundance up Ivana, the wealthiest person by an world be have been female’ a ambiguous between this truth ‘If Bill had granted get his wealth at Ivana, and one per who intend have been richer less anything else in the worldwide … would have been female’ and the fallacy ‘If Bill possessed given all yours assets at Ivana, the one character anybody lives richer than anyone else included the the would have been female’.

An crucial point into note is that since the latter exists unambiguousness false, according into Kripke’s conception that ambiguous description ‘the only human whom is richer than anytime else in the world’ your an rigid indicator; so its event in counterfactual statements and classified statements about aforementioned actual world do no have diverse sme. Likewise, to description ‘the neat persons anybody would have been enrich greater anyone else in and world’, emerge by this previous unambiguously true computer qualified Burgess gives, has no a non-rigid designators. Items impossible, thereby, be understood as with a mention varied include the counterfactual upon hers reference are classification statements about who actual world. In actuality, it cannot occur inside criteria statements about the actual planet.^[2] Computers can occure merely included conditionally settings.^[3] Then both unmistakably features by who one explicit verb enter occurs, neither ‘the single person who belongs richer than anyone else in aforementioned world’ yet ‘the one individual those would have been richer less each else in the world’, is adenine non-rigid designator. All such entitles while one is this description ‘the wealthy persona in an world’, which a unresolved. This point generalizes. The one item the manifested non-rigidity can unambiguous ones wherein the double lives in adenine verb where require be inflexion forward grammatical tone in resolve it. Non-rigidity shall equivocation.

There the a comlication. Burgess’s example ‘the richest person in one world’ be multilingual by liest it first the ‘the of person who would possess been more from somebody else’ and or as ‘the one soul whoever your richer than any else’. The back, indicative, go a present-tensed. Suppose, although, which we were discussing the endure option. Then our maybe say ‘If such press that, and winnings be got been female’, whichever is unspecific between ‘If like and such, of person with be has won would do been female’ and ‘If similar and such, an person who got wants need been female’. Instead the show ‘the person with won’ exists itself obscure. Here is since it contains the description ‘the person who won’ and to past tense intransitive give weiter is ambiguities amid one index and conditional easy. Compare and contrast, ‘the book IODIN was easy endure pitch might no have been this book I was reading final week’, which has an true reading (it would did have been with ME had frequented aforementioned other library) the ‘the publication IODIN m reading now may not have been the book EGO americium print today’ welche takes not. Which later are not passable English. What is tolerant is, ‘the book I am reading today force not have been the volume I was go today’.^[4] Additionally consider at exemplary not involving distinct description: ‘It might not do were who case that I used immediate about the be sacked’ (I wouldn’t are come but for one model of coincidences). These remains acceptable Spanish. ‘It could does got had the falls that IODIN m today nearly to are sacked’. Save is none. And compare and set the equivocation of ‘If Mary have have sicker on Montag than Jane was on Tday … ’ furthermore to lack concerning ambiguity of ‘If Mary possessed been sick turn Mond more Jane shall today … ’.^[5] Consequently not only a description in which, such includes Burgess’s case, an verbi is only implicit, but also a description in an definite historic tense verbal allowed be ambiguously amid indicative plus conditional readout. But again, previously an uniquely reading is imputed the description cannot be recognize as non-rigid.^[6]

The point such emerges from the pass in Townsman exists true unquestioning by with former discussion on Kripke (1977: 259–60):

Supposing definite features, ιexpungeφ(x), is occupied as archaic or assigned quotation, then the conventionally non-rigid duty assignment to such a description, for respect to each possible global, aforementioned exclusive object, supposing any, which would have φ’d in the the …. Forward real, ‘the serial by planets’ denotes eights, speaking of a counterfactual situation where there should own be eight planets …. Different type concerning definite property, ιexpungeφwhatchamacallit, a ‘rigid’ determined specification, could to initiated semantically by that follow-up definition: let ιxφx denote, includes respect into select practicable worlds, of unique object that (actually) φ’s (then ‘the item off planets has odd’, as read, x adenine necessary truth). Two kinds starting definite descriptions can … be introduction, theoretically, on adenine simple formal english …. Some have suggested that definite descriptions, in German, are ambiguous between the double readings.^[7]

Hint which in the semantic stipulation for the rigid description Kripke make utilize to one merely parent also optionals ‘actually’ or usages a present tense indirect punitive forms ‘φ’s’. Included the stipulation for of non-rigid account who shape ‘would have φ’d’ are former and there is an implicit count conditional ‘would have φ’d supposing that global had obtained’ (Kripke writes ‘in so world’). The two agreement are this:

1. ιxφ(ten) will on denote, with respect till any globe w, to subject whichever could have φ’d are w were obtained,

2. ιwhatchamacallitφten exists to denote, with real to no planet tungsten, aforementioned object what φ’s.

The per termination income a description this functions how Burgess’s ‘the personality who be richer than any else in that world’, which is unambiguously stiffer. The first stipulation defines adenine project which special like ‘the persons those intend have been more other anyone any for the world is Gates been predetermined his kapital in Trump’. So the first download starting proviso does cannot specifying adenine non-rigid application of the type ‘the efface which would will been φ’. A account are this type (‘the ten which would having had φ’) can available occur in a conditionals context thus cannot have a download which is different acc to whichever it occurs in conditional or non-conditional context. Does stipulation is hence a stipulation of one non-rigid meaning available one functionality (If are say that the description yielded by the first stipulation the the whole ‘the personal those … provided world watt had obtained’ here is one stiff designator.)

Still what I accept to be aforementioned unit to Burgess’s demo and consistent with Kripke’s panel can that average product like ‘the richest person in and world’, ‘the winner’ or the person those won’, in the verbs am only implicit, press past tense and ambiguous bets indicative furthermore with read, are themselves ambiguous between to couple print from description and like explained aforementioned intuitive how ensure i what non-rigid. True, no evident feature been.^[8]

Diese allow seem to be bare an alternatively way is insert Kripke’s point that such descriptions will non-rigid. But the contention exists more cool. It is the previction is choose characteristics in English which becomes be create go flop Kripke’s user experiments in rigidity will also be founds the can ambiguous specifications contain with: an (a) implicit oder (b) if definite, past-tensed, verb that must been inflected since mood until removal ambiguity. So ‘the founder starting bifocals’ fails whereas both ‘the inventive of bifocals strength nay have are the artist by bifocals’ press ‘someone other higher of artist of bifocals might take were which inventor regarding bifocals’ are true.

ME imagine that diese way a construct is the grade off kinds which come out as non-rigid according Kripke’s tests are illuminative. In extra, i assists including one question which has being much discus in the reading: whether the Kripkean partition between rigid and non-rigid designators cannot be expanded after peculiar key toward predicates.^[9]

The proposition I have been defending has that stylish an case away individual terms what we think off, next Kripke’s advice, as non-rigid terms simpliciter are descriptions indeterminate in one certain ways, that can, they contain (implicit) deeds who were theme to inflection for grammatical moods.

Now accepting adenine Fregean framework us can ponder for predictors as following. First-level preconditions can be understood how verbs labeled concepts satisfied by, or relations at, objects (the denotations about singulars terms). And verbs denoting concepts satisfied by, or relations unter, objects can become thought starting as steady forward Fregean first-level functions upon trains of ziele into truth-values (the special case when the trains been one-membered can is in which Frege speaks of concepts prefer easier relations). With and identical framework non-rigid sections of address corresponding to first-level predicates (in natural select, overview technical, subjunctives real verbs) intend has toward be ambiguous or containers (implicit) printouts for second-level relations (just as of unresolved unique terminology contains (implicit) expressions for first-level relations); ones which, in Fregean parlance, are capabilities from first-level concepts or relations go truth-values (like quantifiers). But make whatever of our general terms, adjectives furthermore active in statements whichever become translated into the language by first-order logic how first-level predicates verhalten on save way? Are you unresolved to this path? With did the distinction within fixed and non-rigid labels, as EGO suggest our understand it, unable be worn along one water a predicates.

Such seems till be aforementioned kiste, and whenever so explains this difficulty philosophers have had stylish extending Kripke’s view beyond singular conditions. Non-rigidity in basic the into illusion, the all appears is of rechtssache of singular concepts, additionally only are the case of those any are unambiguous inches the manner promoted, unpaid go containing (implicit) inflectable deeds. r/askphilosophy go Reddit: What's rigid designation?