Abstract

In this paper I am concerned with the problem of applying the notion of rigidity to general terms. In Naming and Necessity, Kripke has clearly suggested that we should include some general terms among the rigid ones, namely, those common nouns semantically correlated with natural substances, species and phenomena, in general, natural kinds -'water', 'tiger', 'heat'- and some adjectives -'red', 'hot', 'loud'. However, the notion of rigidity has been defined for singular terms; after all, the notion that Kripke has provided us with is the notion of a rigid designator. But general terms do not designate single individuals: rather, they apply to many of them. In sum, the original concept of rigidity cannot be straightforwardly applied to general terms: it has to be somehow redefined in order to make it cover them. As is known, two main positions have been put forward to accomplish that task: the identity of designation conception, according to which a rigid general term is one that designates the same property or kind in all possible worlds, and the essentialist conception, which conceives of a rigid general term as an essentialist one, namely, a term that expresses an essential property of an object. My purpose in the present paper is to defend a particular version of the identity of designation conception: on the proposed approach, a rigid general term will be one that expresses the same property in all possible worlds and names the property it expresses. In my opinion, the position can be established on the basis of an inference to the best explanation of our intuitive interpretation and evaluation, relative to counterfactual circumstances, of statements containing different kinds of general terms, which is strictly analogous to our intuitive interpretation and evaluation, relative to such circumstances, of statements containing different kinds of singular ones. I will argue that it is possible to offer a new solution to the trivialization problem that is thought to threaten all versions of the identity of designation conception of rigidity. Finally, I will also sketch a solution to the so-called 'over-generalization and under-generalization problems', both closely related to the above-mentioned one.

Highlights

  • In this paper I am concerned with the problem of applying the notion of rigidity to general terms

  • In Naming and Necessity, Kripke has clearly suggested that we should include some general terms among the rigid ones, namely, those common nouns semantically correlated with natural substances, species and phenomena, in general, natural kinds -‘water’, ‘tiger’, ‘heat’- and some adjectives -‘red’, ‘hot’, ‘loud’

  • The notion of rigidity has been defined for singular terms; after all, the notion that Kripke has provided us with is the notion of a rigid designator

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In this paper I am concerned with the problem of applying the notion of rigidity to general terms. My purpose in the present paper is to defend a particular version of the identity of designation conception: on the proposed approach, a rigid general term will be one that expresses the same property in all possible worlds and names the property it expresses. The project has the philosophical significance of attempting to provide a justification for the Kripkean claim according to which rigidity is a property that can be applied to a distinguished set of singular terms and to a significant set of general ones, which seem to semantically behave more to each other than one would have thought. I present an argument for a version of the identity of designation conception, which is grounded on an intuitive analogy between general terms and singular ones. Under-generalization problems’, both closely related to the abovementioned one

AN ARGUMENT FOR THE RIGIDITY OF SIMPLE KINDS TERMS
THE TRIVIALIZATION PROBLEM
THE CONDITION OF EXTENSIONAL ADEQUACY
Full Text
Published version (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