1
   

rigidity, non-rigidity and quantifiers

 
 
gabalus
 
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 12:58 pm
I hope this question will meet wider reaction then any of my previous one. [If I'm obscure or unclear in my questions tell me, I'll try to clarify them]

There are there kinds of singular terms:
1. rigid
2. non-rigid
3. quantifiers

ad. 1
Kripke, let's say, convincted me that proper names are rigid designator

ad. 3
Russell and Neal (in his 'Descriptions') convinced me that definite descriptions should be analyzed as quantifiers, THE F := Exist exactly one x and F(x)
The expression written with a bold font is an existential quantifier that could be easly defined in the first order logic

ad. 2
what about that, what kind of expressions belong here?
This is open question, I'm would be greatful for any answer, any reference to a literature, for any thing that help me deal with that question
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 973 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Apr, 2009 05:49 pm
@gabalus,
If it is necessary to understand language to communicate I am in trouble...I don't understand women either... I do understand dogs...If it smells good, it is good...
gabalus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 09:28 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
If it is necessary to understand language to communicate I am in trouble...I don't understand women either... I do understand dogs...If it smells good, it is good...


Fido, what do you mean by this reply?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Apr, 2009 03:44 pm
@gabalus,
gabalus wrote:
Fido, what do you mean by this reply?

What do you mean by your question??? People disect and study language and never get closer to the truth...How is is possible thatt simple ignorant people can communicate... The fact is that the need to so they do... It is not an action, but a process, a relationship... So say what you want about any part of language, with language...the harder you look the less you communicate...
0 Replies
 
gabalus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 11:19 am
@gabalus,
Fido
Of course I could take a language with lock, stock and barell but then I should stop my investigation. What I've understood from your question is that you don't know what scientific theory is. My question was targeted to the people working in a certain philosophical tradition, having some knowledge on the subject. The posts like yours miss the point. Probably you prefer different philosophical option them me, then we have nothing to talk about, unless you understand my question [the question which is full of asumption, which are obvious for me, the others who knew what I'm asking for].
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 May, 2009 04:37 pm
@gabalus,
gabalus wrote:
Fido
Of course I could take a language with lock, stock and barell but then I should stop my investigation. What I've understood from your question is that you don't know what scientific theory is. My question was targeted to the people working in a certain philosophical tradition, having some knowledge on the subject. The posts like yours miss the point. Probably you prefer different philosophical option them me, then we have nothing to talk about, unless you understand my question [the question which is full of asumption, which are obvious for me, the others who knew what I'm asking for].

I am not sure I know what anything is, but I am pretty sure I know what is going on... I have been reading an interesting book, but poking around in it, might be more accurate... It is called Critique of Scientific Reason by Kurt Hubner translated by Dixon and Dixon..And you may be right, that I do not understand wht scientific theory is, but I would say it is the theoretical formulation of a behavior that if tested mught be expressed as a law.. . My reply was by way of observation that things like language work when they work in spite of the fact that we do not know how they work... You don't have to be an auto mechanic to drive a car...Still it is nice if you know how to check the oil... I pick up books on syntax, and language, and rhetoric, and grammer....Can I say that I honestly understand them??? Not in the least... English is not native to any of my genetic stock..Like the Latin of which it may be 50% part, it is the language of conquerors...I know some French which gave me the insight that to have and to be help to conjugate all the verbs, so all of life might be reduce to what you are, or have...And now I am trying to learn Greek, but I know only how to recognize some words, and have a small list of cognates... I heard once, and it makes sense, that when we talk about talking it is called the second intention... What, then, is the first intention???
0 Replies
 
gabalus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 01:58 pm
@gabalus,
Fido
I had written a reply but because of server's failure I lost it. I'll write it down again, but later. Now I tell you what was the point: I can't unferstand you, don't know what is the relation between my question and you answers. Please, give me a sign that you know what I'm asking about [in the begining of this thread]
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 04:05 pm
@gabalus,
No; I cannot do that... As much as I read about language as an abstract, it is all Greek to me...In fact, I am trying to learn Greek now, and Greek is easier to understand by way of cognate than language which we all have some understanding of, reduced to so many rules...It may be that there is some truth to what you say...There may be some truth to all my linguistics books... By the time I reach that level of abstraction it is no longer something I can love... Can you abstract the sex in a love relationship??? Does that not make you a little limp??? If we clearly do not need to understand it to use it, and the understanding of it does not necessarily apply to other forms, then why should I look so closely at it???

I think I can tell you something specific that I have trouble with in linguistics... Language is an abstraction of reality, and if we find it necessary to examine this abstraction of reality as an object we are abstracting an abstraction which leads to a nearly impossible level of difficulty, which is perhaps why I find it difficult... The best I can do is understand language in vivo since in vitro is simply too complex for me...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » rigidity, non-rigidity and quantifiers
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 05:44:18