Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:46:01.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cluster Theory: Resurrection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

Peter Alward
Peter Alward*
Affiliation:
University of Lethbridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The cluster theory of names is generally thought to have been to have been utterly discredited by the objections raised against it by Kripke in Naming and Necessity. In this paper, I develop a new version of the cluster theory in which the role played by clusters of associated descriptions is occupied by teams of cognitive relations. And I argue that these teams of relations find a home in an account of the meanings of expressions in epistemic sentence frames, and in a more general theory of the reference of proper names.

RÉSUMÉ: La théorie des faisceaux de noms est généralement considérée sans fondement depuis les objections soulevées par Kripke dans Naming and Necessity. Nous proposons une nouvelle version de la théorie des faisceaux dans laquelle le rôle joué par les faisceaux de descriptions associées est pris en charge par des équipes de relations cognitives. Ces équipes de relations trouvent leur place au sein de l’explication de la signification des expressions dans le cadre de phrases épistémologiques et, plus généralement, dans celui d’une théorie de la référence des noms propres.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 269 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alward, Peter 2000 “Simple and Sophisticated ‘Naïve’ Semantics.” Dialogue, 39: 101-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alward, Peter 2003 “Fregecide.” Dialogue, 42: 275-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alward, Peter 2005 “A Neo-Hintikkan Solution to Kripke’s Puzzle.” In Mistakes of Reason: Essays in Honour of John Woods, edited by Peacock, Kent and Irvine, Andrew. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 93-102.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman and Lepore, Ernie 2005 Insensitive Semantics. New York: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith 1966 “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” Philosophical Review, 75: 281-304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob 1997 “On Sense and Reference.” In The Frege Reader, edited by Beaney Malden, M.. New York: Blackwell, pp. 151-172.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret 1987 “Modelling Collective Belief.” Synthese, 75: 185-204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul 1980 Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul 1988 “A Puzzle about Belief.” In Propositions and Attitudes, edited by Salmon, N., and Soames, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 102-48.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan 1986 Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen 1992 “Belief Ascriptions.” The Journal of Philosophy, 89: 499-521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John 1958 “Proper Names.” Mind, 67: 166-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John 1983 Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1960 “Phenomenalism.” In Science, Perception, and Reality. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott 1988 “Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content.” In Propositions and Attitudes edited by Salmon, N. and Soames, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 197-239.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter 1959 Individuals. London: Methuen.Google Scholar