Ambiguity In The Theory Of The Description Theory

In the passage Nancy Mairs uses and explains different words to clarify to the reader about why she prefers to be called “cripple” instead of any other words. Mairs defines the different words that have been used on her and explains how they are different and do not relate to her at all. She also explains how a name can make a situation seem less important or less of what the problem really is.

Nancy Mairs, a woman with multiple sclerosis, chooses to describe/call herself (as) a “cripple.” Mairs chose this word because she felt it was the most accurate description and accepts it as a truth about herself. Mairs uses a matter-of-fact tone in this essay, which proves she knows what she’s talking about. She also defines words and explains why they aren’t [accurate] , which backs up her specific word

(227). By providing such examples, Talbot is able to get across the negative effects of naming a

The concept of having a “good name” is established at the very beginning of the tale, with the intertwined

At birth everyone is given a name by their parents. Your name is part of your identity and how you are addressed and recognized by the world. The different verities among the population created other names given to different races. These names are offensive, demeaning and are only used to refer to a person in a disrespectful manner. They can also cause a segregation among a nations people, these names are forced upon people weather they are rich or poor, old or young, male or female and are used to describe the same race of people. In the class reading "What 's in a Name? “by Henry Louis Gates he reminisces about a personal experience of his that he had with his father. In the story he describes his father was a hard worker and, because of this he was in high financial standings and, he was well respected and given privileges that at the time was rare for people of his race but he was still black and his name, his individual identity was not important instead he was given a racial identity, this is the only thing he was known as, this type of negative recognition is something many black Americans can relate to. One’s race is a predominant part of our identity and is what causes discrimination.

In this paper I will present the arguments for tropes and their distinction from universals and particulars as presented by Keith Campbell in his paper “The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars.” I will then present a counter argument to Campbell’s evaluation and provide possible responses to those arguments. I will also provide possible adjustments Campbell could make to create a more sound argument.

Therefore, when we say, “Smith’s murderer is insane,” the implication is not true. The consequences of this differ based on which use of description the speaker is employing. Under an attributive usage, there would be no person who we can truly attribute insanity to. Meanwhile, with a referential usage, the speaker could still successfully refer to Jones. However, the description, “insane murderer” would no longer fit Jones. The act of picking out is the key function for a referential use of a description. Even if the description is wrong, reference is still

The use of names for

As I have countless documented proof that I am, in fact, Sarah Elshater, my utterance of the sentence simply means that I know my name, and I am declaring my knowledge. For my brother to say that sentence, he could have a sarcastic or mocking tone, which could indicate that he is joking. Or, he could be genuine with his declaration, where he actually believes he is Sarah Elshater, in which case we would take him to the hospital to have his brain checked out. When it comes to indexicals, content is key to deciphering context, and without content, it can become difficult to understand a person’s intent. In this paper, I will outline Perry’s problem of the essential indexical, as well as outline his solution for this problem. In doing this, I will also make arguments for Perry’s arguments about the essential

A name is one of the primary things that humans identify with; a barcode given at birth that makes someone a little more human, a little more unique. Each author uses a name's significance to say something greater. In “The Metamorphosis”, Gregor and Grete are the only characters who are named. Other characters in the short story are referred to by their

Labelling theory refers to the ability to attach a label to a person or group of people and in so doing the label becomes more important than the individual. The label becomes the dominant form of identify and takes on ‘Master Status’ (Becker 1963; Lemert 1967) so that the person can no longer be seen other than through the lens of the label. Words, just like labels, are containers of meaning. In this case, the label and the meaning attached to it becomes all that the person is rather than a temporary feature of something that they have done or a way that they have behaved.

The meaning of names is a central focus of the novel, because names define people. Their worth and functions are summarized by the names. To some extent, the names also discourage originality. This occurs especially to

Do names really define a human being? I believe a person should be original, however that does not mean having a unique name. In my opinion, names are useful to acknowledge a person not label them. The above quote by William Shakespeare is symbolic to my beliefs. The poem’s meaning is a rose smells as sweet even if it was called any other name. That is conclusive to my thoughts because the rose is sweet from being a flower not because of it’s name. Your name doesn’t characterize you, but you personalize your name to fit your traits.

One consequence of viewing ontology and identity as relative is that properties and universals hardly seem much more problematic. Although universals obviously do not exist on a fundamental level, I think both David Lewis and David Armstrong provide helpful suggestions on the scope of universals in practical discourse.

In this paper, I will begin by briefly explaining both what defines a natural kind term and what the description theory of the meaning and reference of natural kind terms is. I will then proceed to outline Hilary Putman’s argument where his main goal is to defeat the descriptive theory and provide a thesis of that of the following, only one being true, and not both: knowing the meaning of a term is just a matter of being in a certain psychological state, and that the meaning of a term determines its extension. Putnam gives two examples to further explain his claim. In regards to his twin earth thought experiment, he concentrates on the idea that meaning is reference. Building off of the twin earth thought experiment, he then provides more