The aim of the paper is to discuss the main characteristics exhibited by so-called rigid designators. Identification of proper names and some descriptions with rigidly designating expressions almost became a truism in the philosophy of language. It is argued that proper names are rigid designators because their reference is conventional, direct and nondescriptive but descriptions are such in spite of their reference being descriptive and mediated. Certain kinds of rigid designators and rigid reference are discriminated and it is found that (...) unlike rigidly designating descriptions most of proper names must be tied to the idea of transworld reference in order to be rigid. The conclusion is that rigidly designating descriptions must be metaphysically loaded much more than proper names for the former presuppose a kind of essentialism. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to argue against well-known Fregean idea according to which the meaning of a proper name determines the referent of the name, and the consequence thereof that semantically interesting proper names can be characterized independently of the notion of referent. The claim that it is meaningful to formulate a theory of meaning only for those names that has referents is defended. Several important morals concerning proper names follow from the claim. 1. The role of a (...) theory of meaning is in fact radically different than it is supposed by Fregean approaches. 2. The meaning of a name cannot determine its referent, and therefore mediate the relation of reference between a name and an object. 3. A theory of reference of proper names, contrary to Fregean point of view, should be taken as primary to a theory of meaning. (shrink)