Posted by alexandra_k on August 30, 2005, at 17:46:54
In reply to Re: mystery of the missing indexical.. » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on August 29, 2005, at 22:40:14
Okay... Now I am confused again...
Time for a little definitional agreement...CHARACTER - a function that maps contexts onto contents.
CONTENT - a function that maps possible worlds onto extensions.
REFERENCE - the external object that is picked out.
Lets have a go with 'alexandra_k':
CHARACTER - I was the individual that was present at the association between word and referent (context -> content).
CONTENT - When considering the worlds where the term 'alexandra_k' is correctly applied we are considering the worlds in which there is an individual with my essential properties (possible world -> extension).
REFERENCE - alexandra_k (extension).Lets have a go with 'the kiwi babbler who goes on about philosophy'.
CHARACTER - In the context of utterance alexandra_k is the only individual who meets that description (context -> content)
CONTENT - It is possible that I never came to babble and that other kiwi philosophers did (etc etc) so the individual picked out across different possible worlds varies...(possible worlds -> extension)
REFERENCE - varies across other possible worlds.Lets have a go at 'I'
CHARACTER - In the context of utterance 'I' picks out alexandra_k (context -> content)
CONTENT - given the character... across all possible worlds 'I' picks out alexandra_k. (possible worlds -> extensions)
REFERENCE - alexandra_k
> 'I', 'here', 'now' are not flaccid designators. They are rigid. Rigidity applies to content, not character.I do believe I'm getting you now :-)
>(So content is intensional. And we are externalists about content. :-))
Hmm. I never thought of it like that. Intensional externalism... I like the sound of that :-)
> Now 'now', here' and so on are also rigid. But of course only with respect to their content; their characters (which are also part of the senses of these terms) are not constant.
Yeah, I get you.
> Characters are neither rigid nor flaccid; they are constant or inconstant.
Okay...
No, sorry... How do they get to be inconstant?
(Does that happen when the context of utterance changes???)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:541758
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/548841.html