• david gudeman
    1
    In "On the Logic of Demonstatives", David Kaplan points out that the sentence "I am here" is always true (he suggests it may be analytically true) but that the proposition it expresses is not necessarily true because it expresses that a certain person is at a certain place at a certain time, which is contingent. In order to deal with this situation, he proposes adding another element to Frege's semantics.

    In Frege's semantics a phrase expresses a sense which has an extension (the extension of the sense is called the denotation of the phrase). Kaplan proposes breaking up the sense into a character and a content, so now the path from phrase to denotation goes like this:

    phrase -> character -> content -> denotation

    The difference between the character and the content is that in the character, demonstratives like "I" and "now" are unresolved and in the content they are resolved.

    I find this account puzzling because I don't see why demonstratives are being treated differently from names. Names can be as context-sensitive as demonstratives. When I talk to my brother, Ed, and use the name "Bob", I'm talking about my other brother, Bob, but when I'm talking to my friend, Ray, and use the name "Bob", I'm talking about our mutual friend, Bob. If I want to mention my brother, Bob to Ray, I call him, "my brother, Bob".

    Is it just that the meaning of a demonstrative is defined by the language itself so that you can write rules about how they are used such as "the sentence 'I am here now' is always true"?

    I think I may have just answered my own question in the process of carefully posing it, but I'll post anyway in case someone else has a comment to make on it.
  • Nagase
    197
    For Kaplan, the two utterances of "Bob" that you described are not occurrences of the same word, but of different words that just happen to share the same "acoustic image", so to speak. In particular, a proper name attaches to just one person, which explains why it has non-variable content (i.e. its character is a constant function). On the other hand, he considers that different utterances of "this" are, if utterances of a demonstrative (and not, say, of an anaphoric pronoun), utterances of the same word.

    Of course, this just invites the question about how to individuate words. Kaplan develops his account of words in his very creatively titled paper, "Words". There, he argues against seeing words as types, preferring to see them as what he calls continuants. Part of his point (and this is constant throughout his career) is that words are individuated by the intentions that animate them. Since he accepts Kripke's story about names (roughly, that we use names primarily with the intention to refer to their bearer), it is clear that the intentions governing the uses of "Bob" in the two occasions are different (in one case, you intend to refer to your brother, whereas, in the other, you intend to your friend), and therefore the words are different. Anyway, this is a simplification, but I think it does get the gist of his position.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

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.