• Shawn
    12.6k
    Following on my topic on Empty names, I wanted to bring up the type-token distinction. Wikipedia pretty much outlines the topic into this:
    ====
    The type–token distinction separates types (abstract descriptive concepts) from tokens (objects that instantiate concepts).
    ====
    So, what are abstract descriptive concepts (types) like Pegasus, Posty McPostface, and Harry Potter?

    Then, on the other side of the coin, "objects that instantiate concepts" can be understood as objects in the world that obtain into signifiers and things (token).

    So, does this better outline the meaning of an "empty name" as an "abstract descriptive concept", and proper names that denote "objects that instantiate concepts"?
  • Baden
    15.6k
    This discussion was merged into Empty names
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.