Abstract
The response to Kripke’s modal argument I wish to propose appeals to the distinction between indicative descriptions, i.e., descriptions formed using indicative verb forms, and what I shall call subjunctive descriptions, descriptions formed using non-indicative verb forms used in subjunctive conditionals. The contrast is between ‘the person who is richer than anyone else in the world’ and ‘the person who would have been richer than anyone else in the world’. The response to Kripke’s modal argument is that indicative descriptions are always rigid designators and so do not contrast with proper names.
Highlights
The [description theorist] would say that the name is defined synonymously, as the cluster of descriptions
The reply to Kripke’s modal argument in this paper only speaks to Kripke’s challenge to the descriptivist to come up with descriptions in English which may plausibly thought of as equivalent to proper names, given that such names function as rigid designators
If definite descriptions formed in English using indicative verb forms are rigid designators it suffices to refute the modal argument since the second premiss of that argument is that no descriptions that can be at all plausibly thought of as synonyms of proper names are rigid designators
Summary
The [description theorist] would say that the name is defined synonymously, as the cluster of descriptions. It appears that present tense indicative descriptions in English, like the ones given, or, for example, ‘the book Mary is reading’ are rigid designators.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
