Content deleted Content added
Finnusertop (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 31:
== Criticisms of the theory ==
* [[Gareth Evans (philosopher)|Gareth Evans]] argued that the causal theory, or at least certain common and over-simple variants of it, have the consequence that, however remote or obscure the causal connection between someone's use of a proper name and the object it originally referred to, they still refer to that object when they use the name. (Imagine a name briefly overheard in a train or café.) The theory effectively ignores context and makes reference into a magic trick. Evans describes it as a "[[photograph]]" theory of reference.{{citation needed|reason=Evans' argument and quote are herein unsourced-no indication of where he argued this|date=April 2016}}
* The links between different users of the name are particularly obscure. Each user must somehow pass the name on to the next, and must somehow "mean" the right individual as they do so (suppose "Socrates" is the name of a pet [[aardvark]]). Kripke himself notes the difficulty, [[John Searle]] makes much of it.{{Citation needed|reason=Reliable source needed for the whole sentence|date=September 2015}}
* [[Mark Sainsbury (philosopher)|Mark Sainsbury]] argued<ref>[http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23599/?id=1343 ''Departing from Frege''] Essay XII</ref> for a causal theory similar to Kripke's, except that the baptised object is eliminated. A "baptism" may be a baptism of nothing, he argues: a name can be intelligibly introduced even if it names nothing.<ref>{{
| |||