Marco Santambrogio

Kevin Mulligan has defended the view that perception is necessary for proper names to refer to spatiotemporal objects and, if the disjunctivist account of perceptual content is accepted, then the category of object-dependent singular terms must also be accepted, and proper names belong to it. I intend to take a different, more direct, route to reach the conclusion that proper names are object dependent. To ask whether, e.g., if Nixon had not existed, the name Nixon would have existed or whether the same name could have undergone a change in referent, is to ask whether it is a mere accident that the name Nixon as we have it now, names Nixon. Could our name Nixon have named, say, David Kaplan, either because it was originally given to him or because, at a certain stage, it changed its referent? This is what the issue of object dependence, as I understand it, amounts to. Here, I only address one half of the problem, namely the possibility of a change in referent. A familiar case of apparent change is that of the name Madagascar, first brought to our attention by Gareth Evans, and then briefly discussed by Saul Kripke in Naming and Necessity. Was it a real change in referent or was a new name created? I claim that the latter is the case. The chapter is mainly intended to clarify the Madagascar example, without drawing any general conclusion. But the issue has some obvious bearing on a number of well-known problems, including Kripke’s puzzles about belief and linguistic consumerism.

This chapter intends to offer a theory of empty names that is consistent with the doctrine of direct reference and respects the intuition that sentences such as _Vulcan does not exist, Le Verrier imagined Vulcan, and Le Verrier believed that Vulcan orbited between Mercury and the sun_, express propositions to which the name Vulcan makes its contribution and which are either true or false. The theory has recourse to a notion of structured propositions that are quite unlike singular propositions, but it still assumes that all proper names, empty or otherwise, have no descriptive content that is semantically relevant. The new-style propositions are language-bound. Thus, the theory reminds us of sententialism–i.e. the theory that the proper objects of propositional attitudes are sentences–but is not vulnerable to the same objections. It is argued that the new-style propositions fare better than the gappy ones in accounting for the semantics of empty names and, more generally, of attitude ascriptions.

According to neo-Russellianism, in a sentence such as John believes that Mont Blanc is 4000 m high, any other proper name co-referring with Mont Blanc can be substituted for it without any change in the proposition expressed. Prima facie, our practice of translation shows that this cannot be correct. We will then show that neo-Russellians have a way out of this problem, which consists in holding that actual translations are not (merely) a matter of semantics, but also make an attempt at preserving some pragmatic features of the sentences to be translated. We then turn to translations that only preserve the semantic characteristics of the sentences and we argue that, although these translations are unable to show that neo-Russellianism is incorrect, they still show that it relies on some theses that seem to have no justification, apart from saving neo-Russellianism itself.

Tarski and Quine argue that it is meaningless to quantify into quotation, the referentially opaque context par excellence. Building on Frege's thesis that ‘the introduction of a sign for identity of content necessarily produces a bifurcation in the meaning of all signs’ (Begriffsschrift, Section 8), we challenge this view. We advance a semantics for first-order languages in which every expression has a ‘bifurcated’ value — a pair consisting of the expression's ordinary referent and the expression itself. This allows treating quotation marks as a function symbol — something that is impossible to achieve within ordinary semantics. In addition to vindicating Frege's treatment of identity in Begriffsschrift, our theory of quotation solves a riddle about anaphora and gives an original account of Giorgione sentences. Building on this account, we offer a reading of quoted variables on which they retain their status as genuine variables. Finally, using this reading, we refute the Tarski–Quine orthodoxy.

According to neo-Russellianism, in a sentence such as John believes that Mont Blanc is 4000 m high, any other proper name co-referring with Mont Blanc can be substituted for it without any change in the proposition expressed. Prima facie, our practice of translation shows that this cannot be correct. We will then show that neo-Russellians have a way out of this problem, which consists in holding that actual translations are not a matter of semantics, but also make an attempt at preserving some pragmatic features of the sentences to be translated. We then turn to translations that only preserve the semantic characteristics of the sentences and we argue that, although these translations are unable to show that neo-Russellianism is incorrect, they still show that it relies on some theses that seem to have no justification, apart from saving neo-Russellianism itself.

Esseri umani, paesi, paesaggi, sono alcuni dei maggiori oggetti del nostro amore. Lo stesso si puň dire di certi ideali, per esempio dell'ideale di giustizia. Harry Frankfurt ha dedicato parte della sua riflessione alla fenomenologia dell'amore, ma dice relativamente poco riguardo alla possibilitÀ che sorgano conflitti tra i nostri oggetti d'amore - specialmente quando č in gioco la giustizia. Questo saggio prende spunto, ancora una volta, dal caso dell'uomo su una barca troppo piccola per trasportare tre persone, che si trova a dover decidere chi salvare tra le due che sono con lui, una delle quali č sua moglie. Il problema č piů arduo di quanto pensi Frankfurt.

A rational subject who believes that a = b, and also believes that j, cannot at the same time disbelieve that j, i.e. believe that not-j. John Searle points out that no such constraint holds for desire and some other propositional attitudes. Which ones, exactly? Where is the divide located and what determines it? These are no minor questions, as they directly bear on the larger issue of how far rationality reaches and the extent to which practical reasoning obeys logical rules. It will be argued that there is no reason for despairing that deductive logic will find a way of dealing with practical reasoning, contrary to Searle’s pessimistic attitude.

What do we see in a mirror? There is an ongoing debate whether mirrors present us with images of objects or whether we see, through the mirror, the objects themselves. Roberto Casati has recently argued that there is a categorical difference between images and mirror-reflections. His argument depends on the observation that mirrors, but not paintings, are sensitive to changes in the observer’s prospective. In our paper we scrutinize Casati’s argument and present a modal argument that shows that it cannot establish this conclusion. We suggest that Casati’s line of reasoning suffers from the fact that he does not take dynamic images, i.e., images that change over time, into account.

Quine is one of the most influential of contemporary philosophers, whose work has ranged broadly across a great number of topics and issues in a career spanning some fifty years. In this collection a group of distinguished philosophers offer a sustained critical evaluation of the full range of Quine's writings. Amongst the topics addressed are interpretation, epistemology, ontology, modality, and mathematical truth. This collection will certainly influence all future discussion of Quine. The contributors include: George Boolos, H-N. Castaneda, Donald Davidson, Umberto Eco, Dagfinn Follesdal, James Higginbotham, Charles Parsons, Hilary Putnam, Barry Stroud, and Bas van Fraassen. However, Quine is given the last word, responding to the essays in the final contribution.

Esseri umani, paesi, paesaggi, sono alcuni dei maggiori oggetti del nostro amore. Lo stesso si può dire di certi ideali, per esempio dell’ideale di giu­stizia. Harry Frankfurt ha dedicato par­te della sua riflessione alla feno­me­no­logia dell’amore, ma dice relativamente poco riguardo al­la possibilità che sorgano conflitti tra i nostri oggetti d’amore – specialmente quando è in gio­­co la giustizia. Questo saggio prende spunto, ancora una volta, dal caso del­l’uomo su una bar­ca troppo piccola per trasportare tre persone, che si tro­va a dover decidere chi salvare tra le due che sono con lui, una delle qua­li è sua moglie. Il problema è più arduo di quanto pensi Frankfurt.Human beings, countries, landscapes, are among the things most of us love. So are some ideals, such as that of justice. Harry Frankfurt has some ar­res­ting thoughts about the phenomenology of love. He says comparatively lit­tle about the possibility that conflicts arise between the objects of our love – especially when justice is involved. In this paper, the case will be taken up once again of the man on a boat too small to take three, who has to de­cide whom to rescue of two persons – one being his wife. The case is har­der than Frankfurt thinks it is