But this is false. Fictional characters don't exist. So we haven't identified any existent characters. You may have identified a certain range of descriptions in the story associated with the purported name "Sherlock Holmes," but you haven't identified Sherlock Holmes. This is false. See next.

(I happen to be a theist, and I am not sure where you stand. But let me ask you this: have you identified God just because "God" as a name is mentioned in the Bible?" I seriously doubt any atheist would agree with you that just because you use a name that purportedly refers, that you have thereby identified that entity as existent.)

huh? Identifiability is certainly a necessary condition to refer to something, but it is not a sufficient condition to refer to something. Something must also exist to which I am referring in order to refer at all.
Again, we cannot refer to non-existent things.

And I have already said that "reference" has one and only one meaning. To suppose otherwise is to introduce different kinds of existence into the world--for which I think there is only one. I truly don't understand what it means when someone says "the chair exists differently than my thoughts." A la Kant, "existence" is not a predicate. "Existence" is a place-holder for all objects that exist. There are not different "ways" of existing. (I may have to refer you to my other post on this matter in Kennethamy's thread titled "Ways of Existing.")

reference

noun
1. an act or instance of referring.

2. a mention; allusion.

3. something for which a name or designation stands; denotation.

4. a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc.

5. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.

6. reference mark (def. 2).

7. material contained in a footnote or bibliography, or referred to by a reference mark.

8. use or recourse for purposes of information: a library for public reference.

9. a person to whom one refers for testimony as to one's character, abilities, etc.

10. a statement, usually written, as to a person's character, abilities, etc.

11. relation, regard, or respect: all persons, without reference to age.

"To refer" is a success term. So to be a referring term, necessarily something must exist to which the term is referring. If a term does not refer, then necessarily, that term is not a referring term. To think otherwise, is to involve oneself in a contradiction.(I am pretty sure we already went over this once before.)

No, it is not false. The descriptions in a story identify who Sherlock Holmes is. Tenniel's picture in Through the Looking-Glass helps to idntify the Jabberwock.
I assume we both agree that Sherlock Holmes and the Jabberwock do not exist. Yet we can tell them apart and know when a person is referring to either one of these imaginary beings.



Now you are presupposing that we can only identify what exists.
I'm not a theist. But if you talk about the God of Abraham I know that you are not talking about Zeus. They have different characteristics and different natures. I can identify and distinguish Zeus from Hera and Jehovah. Yet none of those imagined beings exist, imho.






Yes we can. People use words to refer to non-existent things and imaginary beings all the time.




From dictionary.com:



I see nothing in that lexical definition that limits 'reference' only to existing object. Again people use words to refer to imaginary and non-existent things all the time.

I think that is right. "To refer" is a success verb. So, it is not true that it is necessary that a referring term succeed in referring. What can succeed can also fail. So a referring term can fail to refer. For instance, "Santa Claus" is a referring term, but it fails to refer. But, Barack Obama is a referring term that succeeds in referring. After all, "to win" is a success term. But that does not mean that a runner cannot fail to win as well as succeed in winning. A term like "although" is not a referring term, for "although" cannot refer, nor can it fail to refer.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 10:27 AM ----------



"Referring term" is a term of art. It is not an ordinary language term. But what you say does accord with Extrain's use of "referring term", since you yourself write that a referring term refers to imaginary and non-existent "things" all the time. I don't know just how you use the term, "thing", but it seems to be just a place-holder for whatever a referring term refers to. Therefore, you must believe that a referring term always refers to something, even if that something is only a thing. I, on the other hand, do not think that a referring term must refer to something, since I think that a referring term may fail to refer to anything. It may merely purport to refer to something, but fail to do so. For example, "Santa Claus" purports to refer, but fails to refer. Neither your use, nor Extrain's use (which appear to be the same) agree with my use. I prefer my use because it allows for a distinction that your use (and Extrain's use) does not allow for. Namely, the distinction between referring terms, whether or not they succeed in referring on the one hanc, and non-referring terms, on the other hand.

If a word can never be used to refer, why would you call it a referring term? You are still making a distinction between referring and non-referring terms.

I think that is right. "To refer" is a success verb. So, it is not true that it is necessary that a referring term succeed in referring. What can succeed can also fail. So a referring term can fail to refer. For instance, "Santa Claus" is a referring term, but it fails to refer. But, Barack Obama is a referring term that succeeds in referring. After all, "to win" is a success term. But that does not mean that a runner cannot fail to win as well as succeed in winning. A term like "although" is not a referring term, for "although" cannot refer, nor can it fail to refer.

"Although" is a non-referring term, but "Santa Claus" is a referring term that happens not to refer. And, of course, "Barack Obama" is a referring term that does refer. Isn't that clear?

You are mixing your words up.

A winning person is a person who won, just as a pointing person is a person pointing, a kicking person is a person kicking, and a shopping person is a person shopping. So long as a term is referring, it is a referring term.

"Referring" is not a static predicate, it is dynamic--just as "kicking," "shopping," and "pointing" are dynamic predicates.

Please, Kennethamy, can you tell me how can I be pointing while failing to point, or be shopping while faling to shop? Or how can a term be referring while failing to refer?

Why don't you just call "Santa Claus" an "empty name"? Why do insist on calling it a "referring term"? You have no reason for saying this, unless you think like Ahab does, that empty names refer to non-existent objects.

A referring term is a term that purports to refer.

Whether or not it refers is contingent on whether it has a referent.

"The inhabitant of Alpha Centuri" is a referring term. Whether it succeeds in referring depends on whether there is an inhabitant of Alpha Centuri.

Unless a term purports to refer, it cannot be a noun or a noun phrase.

Ahab seems to believe, like you, that all nouns, and noun phrases refer.

Only you seem to believe that they also must refer. An empty name does not refer, but since it purports to refer, it is a referring term.

What would you call the "term "although" in your topology?

A preposition.

But is it a referring term, or is it a non-referring term? (And, I don't mean to ask, is it like "Santa Claus"?)

Of course, it is a non-referring term.

Now would you please answer my question?:

How can I be presently pointing while failing to point, or be presently shopping while faling to shop? How can a term be presently referring while failing to refer?

I'm not entering back into this thread to argue or support my position. I will say that I do not think Kennethamy has misled me, knowingly or otherwise. Thence, I deny what Extrain says above in bold.

Although I am not here to argue (or even to present reasons for thinking what I do), I am interested in making sure I understand everyone's position. I will now clarify Kennethamy's position and Extrain's position. If I am mistaken and misinterpret your position, Extrain, let me know.

Although it's true that a term either refers or it doesn't, the issue (for Kennethamy) isn't as black and white as that, for this issue also deals with whether or not a term could refer. There are terms that cannot refer at all, and those terms are called non-referring terms. Examples include terms like "however", "or", and "yet." Nothing could ever exist such that those terms could point to them. Nothing exists or could ever exist to instantiate them.

If a term isn't a non-referring term, then a term is a referring term, but what is a referring term? Is it a term that does refer--like Extrain thinks? Or, it is a term that could refer--like Kennethamy thinks?

According to Extrain, there are only two possibilities: 1) The term refers or 2) the term doesn't refer.

According to Kennethamy, there are three possibilities: 1) the term cannot refer, 2) the term can and does refer, and 3) the term could yet doesn't refer.

Both Extrain and Kennethamy agree that the term, "or" has no referent and is thus a non-referring term. Both Extrain and Kennethamy agree that term, "Ahab" refers and is thus a referring term. But, they disagree as to whether or not the term, "unicorn" is a referring term.

According to Extrain, the term, "unicorn" is a non-referring term, since there are no unicorns. Kennethamy, on the other hand, believes that the term, "unicorn" is a referring term, not because it can and does refer but because it could refer if ever unicorns were found.

The issue boils down to what it means to say of a term that it's a referring term.

I am charging that Ken's position is incorrect on account of his misunderstanding the parts of speech. "Referring" is a dynamic predicate like walking, running, and pointing, not a static one. This is Ken's confusion. He takes the fixed syntactic placement of the adjective "referring" in front of the word "term" as reason for believing some referring terms don't refer. But not all properties are static. Some are dynamic. "Referring" in "X is referring" is in present perfect progressive tense. So if a term is referring, then that term necessarily refers.

Because I can purport to point without actually pointing, and I can purport to shop without actually shopping.

I am not compelled by that argument. The term, "dynamic" (or "static") is not a term I understand in this context. And the argument that if "referring term" is a dynamic term then all referring terms must refer, is not something I can evaluate. Why cannot a term purport to refer, but not refer, just as a term can purport to be meaningful, but not be meaningful? Is "meaningful" "dynamic" or is it "static", and how do I tell?

Stop there.

At time t1:

If Jack is running, and is only purporting to run, but not actually running--then this is a contradiction.

If a term is referring, and is only purporting to refer, but not actually referring--then this is a contradiction.

You confuse parts of speech to advance a philosophical thesis. I would ask that you pay attention to your use of language.

---------- Post added 04-19-2010 at 11:42 AM ----------

I still think it's important to keep in mind that whether or not a term refers has little to do with our individual use of a term. For example, I am using the term "Santa" when I look to a man dressed in a Santa suit and say, "Hey look; It's Santa!," and though I am referring to a man dressed in a Santa suit, my individual use of that term doesn't therefore make the term a referring term, for not even the context in which I used the term can make it so that there is therefore a Santa, and as I hope at least some of us agree, unless there is a Santa, the term, "Santa" is not a referring term--regardless of how we might use the term in certain contexts.

I agree that one cannot both run and fail to run, and so one cannot purport to run. However, it still seems to me that one can use a referring term, and fail to refer with that term, so that one only purports to refer. Therefore, I conclude that the analogy between "referring" and, "running" is not a good one. I suggest that "to run" is an extensional verb, but "to refer" is an intensional verb. So that "referring" is like "searching for", in that one can search for The Fountain of Youth without there being a Fountain of Youth, so one can refer to The Fountain of Youth, without there being a Fountain of Youth. But, one cannot run a race without there being a race to run.

I would agree that this is complicated. More so than I first thought it was. It requires more consideration.

I agree that one cannot both run and fail to run, and so one cannot purport to run. However, it still seems to me that one can use a referring term, and fail to refer with that term, so that one only purports to refer.

Therefore, I conclude that the analogy between "referring" and, "running" is not a good one.

I suggest that "to run" is an extensional verb, but "to refer" is an intensional verb. So that "referring" is like "searching for", in that one can search for The Fountain of Youth without there being a Fountain of Youth, so one can refer to The Fountain of Youth, without there being a Fountain of Youth. But, one cannot run a race without there being a race to run.

But don't you share Extrain's view that we can only refer to things that exist? The blue text seems to indicate otherwise.