Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorArrieta Urtizberea, Agustín ORCID
dc.date.accessioned2012-04-24T11:02:04Z
dc.date.available2012-04-24T11:02:04Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationActa Analytica 20(3) : 48-58 (2005)es
dc.identifier.issn0353-5150
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/7472
dc.description.abstract[EN]This work will focus on some aspects of descriptive names. The New Theory of Reference, in line with Kripke, takes descriptive names to be proper names. I will argue in this paper that descriptive names and certain theory in reference to them, even when it disagrees with the New Theory of Reference, can shed light on our understanding of (some) non-existence statements. I define the concept of descriptive name for hypothesised object (DNHO). My thesis being that DNHOs are, as I will specify, descriptions: a proposition expressed by the utterance ‘n is F’, where ‘n’ is a DNHO, is not singular at all; it is a descriptive proposition. To sum up, concerning proper names, the truth lies closer to the New Theory of Reference, but descriptivism is not altogether false. As for DNHOs descriptivism is, in some cases, the right fit.es
dc.language.isoenges
dc.publisherSpringeres
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses
dc.subjectdescriptive nameses
dc.subjectdescriptive name for hypothesised objectes
dc.subjectempty nameses
dc.subjectnon-existence statementses
dc.subjectnew theory of referencees
dc.title‘Neptune’ between ‘Hesperus’ and ‘Vulcan’: On descriptive names and non-existencees
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees
dc.rights.holder(c)2005 Springer. The final publication is avalaible at www.springerlink.comes
dc.relation.publisherversionhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/0353-5150/es
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12136-005-1029-8
dc.departamentoesLógica y filosofía de la cienciaes_ES
dc.departamentoeuLogika eta zientziaren filosofiaes_ES
dc.subject.categoriaPHILOSOPHY


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record