Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(1)
However, as Kripke has defined 'strongly rigid', 'Hesperus' cannot be a "strongly rigid designator"; that distinction is reserved for designators that designate a necessarily existing object (1980, pp. 48-9).
Similar(59)
In 1980 support for the direct-reference view was provided by the American philosopher Saul Kripke, who argued that proper names, unlike descriptions, were "rigid designators" that referred directly to the same object in every "possible world".
First, designators that are rigid can fail to be causally grounded.
So designators that are rigid might fail to be causally grounded.
Designators that are causally grounded might also fail to be rigid.
By ignoring non-names, we can ignore descriptive designators that are rigid, provided that names are nondescriptive, directly referring designators: suppose again that they are.
Even though there are rigid designators that are not directly referential, it is plausible to suppose that all directly referential expressions are rigid designators (as Kaplan suggests: 1989b, p. 571).
'Watery stuff' just is a designator for stuff that is wet, drinkable, and so on.
The singleton of 1 has a canonical designator, '{1}', that displays its ontological fundament, 1, and the set-building operation signified by the operator ".
The notion of a rigid designator comes from Kripke (1980), who (roughly speaking) defines a rigid designator to be an expression that designates the same thing with respect to all possible worlds.
Rigid designation requires that the object designated by a rigid designator be the same in all worlds.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com