Rigid expressionism is the view that all natural kind terms and many other kind terms are rigid designators. Rigid expressionists embrace the ‘overgeneralization’ of rigidity, since they hold that not just natural kind terms but all unstructured kind terms are rigid designators. Unfortunately overgeneralization remains a defeating problem for rigid expressionism. It runs together natural kind terms and nominal kind terms in a way that enforces a false semantic uniformity. The Kripke/putnam view of natural kind terms minus the claim of (...) rigidity is correct, but a traditional descriptivist theory is appropriate for nominal kind terms. None of them should be thought of as either rigid or non-rigid, however. (shrink)

El presente escrito discute la plausibilidad de la admisión de términos generales rígidos no naturales. Enunciados de identidad teórica que incluyen términos generales rígidos no naturales no expresan necesidad a posteriori: son enunciados analíticos, necesarios y a priori. Sólo los enunciados de identidad que incluyen términos generales rígidos naturales son enunciados necesarios a posteriori. Los problemas de la trivialización y sobre generalización suponen que la aplicación de la rigidez a los términos de clase no natural resta importancia a la rigidez (...) como diferenciador semántico – modal, pero eso solo es así si estos problemas exigen que cualquier término general rígido permita afirmar necesidad a posteriori, lo que es rechazado. Se propone la nominalización de un término general como una vía de solución a la trivialización y la sobregeneralización. Del mismo modo, se descarta una lectura predicativa restrictiva de los términos generales. Finalmente, se explicita el principal caso de términos generales no rígidos: términos descriptivos sintácticamente complejos. (shrink)

History is narrated, as any good storyteller knows, and narration depends for its effects on our notions and metaphors. In their 2002 introduction to 'The Ways That Never Parted', Annette Yoshiko Reed and Adam H. Becker write “The notion of an early and absolute split between Judaism and Christianity, but also the 'master narrative' about Jewish and Christian history that pivots on this notion is being called into question”. In this thesis, by bringing the philosopher Jean-François Lyotard’s 'The Hyphen' into (...) dialogue with both the “parting of the ways” and many other voices from within Jewish and Christian studies, I continue this calling into question. This dismantling does not leave us bereft of notions, narratives, and concepts but with the beginnings of new ones; as Judith Lieu has claimed “a more flexible 'map' [is] required”, as are “different models to answer different questions or maintain different interpretations”. In a series of chapters, Lyotard’s concepts of “designators”, “idioms”, “obligation” and “differends”, are offered as some potential new models, and their interactions clarified. As well as conveying the, often implicit, sense these concepts had for Lyotard, further distinctions are layered in that he left unsaid. By way of this, a new conceptual schema for discussing religious “phrases” – encompassing both linguistic and other acts – is outlined and the areas for further elaboration within it are indicated. In each chapter, this schema is applied to specific texts from within Jewish and Christian studies, to see what new light it can cast on these debates, as well as to refine and test it. All of this is offered in support of a second level argument, that a renewed dialogue between Lyotard’s writings and Jewish and Christian studies could generate ways out of the impasses in each of their paths ahead. (shrink)

The rigid designation of proper names and natural kind terms is the most well-known doctrine of Kripke’s Naming and Necessity (1981). On the basis of rigidity, Kripke has shown that proper names and natural kind terms do not refer via a description as argued by descriptivists. In response to Kripke several people have argued that all general terms could be interpreted rigidly, which would make the notion of rigidity trivial. This leads to the ‘rigidity problem’: the notion of rigidity cannot (...) be used to argue against descriptivism anymore. I will show that the rigidity problem appears on a larger scale: firstly, because it appears independently of the trivialisation problem, secondly, because it appears for descriptions acting like singular terms as well. I will argue, however, that proper names and natural kind terms differ in an important manner from rigid descriptions. While the first are de jure rigid, the latter are de facto rigid. I will show that the rigidity problem indeed appears for de facto rigidity, but not for de jure rigidity, with the result that Kripke’s argument against descriptivism can withstand. (shrink)