Timeline for Nothingness cannot be. Does that imply something must be?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2013 at 19:03 | comment | added | Emily | Unfortunately I disagree with Kripke’s objections to the descriptivist theory of naming. At any rate, comments isn’t a place for discussion so I’ll refrain from further remarks. | |
| Sep 28, 2013 at 16:05 | comment | added | Arash | One has to be careful about right and wrong here! and I tried to present a big picture here and I did not present my personal take on the problem. But what you are saying is somehow Russell-Quine approach to the problem. Unfortunately it is kind of well established, after Kripke's "naming and necessity" that you cannot replace proper names, like Sherlock Holmes, with definite descriptions, like "the man as described in Conan Doyle’s books". In other words, semantical content of proper names is only their reference and no definite description, hence Millianism. | |
| Sep 28, 2013 at 14:24 | comment | added | Emily | from "X does not exist" it follows that "There is something that does not exist" — wrong. “X does not exist” should be taken as “nothing which has properties of X exist”, which is a perfectly valid claim. For instance, the actual meaning of “Sherlock Holmes does not exist” is “the man as described in Conan Doyle’s books does not exist”. | |
| Sep 27, 2013 at 9:33 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 27, 2013 at 15:09 | |||||
| Sep 27, 2013 at 9:17 | history | answered | Arash | CC BY-SA 3.0 |