An inconsistency in direct reference theory

Journal of Philosophy 101 (11):574 - 593 (2004)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Direct reference theory faces serious prima facie counterexamples which must be explained away (e.g., that it is possible to know a priori that Hesperus = Phosphorus). This is done by means of various forms of pragmatic explanation. But when those explanations that provisionally succeed are generalized to deal with analogous prima facie counterexamples concerning the identity of propositions, a fatal dilemma results. Either identity must be treated as a four-place relation (contradicting what just about everyone, including direct reference theorists, takes to be essential to identity). Or direct reference theorists must incorporate a view that was rejected in pretty much our first lesson about identity—namely, that Hesperus at twilight is not identical to Hesperus at dawn. One way of the other, the direct reference theory is thus inconsistent with basic principles concerning the logic of identity, which nearly everyone, including direct reference theorists, take as starting points.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-12-08
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
414 ( #18,128 of 69,033 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #46,808 of 69,033 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.