Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Marcus and the new theory of reference: A reply to Scott Soames

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is a reply to some of Scott Soames' comments on my colloquium paper “Marcus, Kripke, and the Origin of the New Theory of Reference’. Except for the indicated parts added in May, 1995, this paper was written on December 16th–25th, 1994 as my reply to Soames for the APA colloquium in Boston, December 28, 1994. In this paper, I argue that Soames' contention that Marcus is not one of the “primary founders of contemporary nondescriptivist theories of reference” is false. Soames presents numerous arguments for his thesis that Marcus did not originate ideas later elaborated upon by Kripke, but his arguments are unsound; they are based in part on a misunderstanding of Marcus' theory and in part on an inadequate grasp of some of the key notions of the New Theory of Reference, such as the notion of a posteriori necessities and the notion of reference-fixing descriptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • De Finetti:Fundamenta Mathematica, Vol. 17, pp. 298–329.

  • Fitch, Frederick: 1950, ‘Attribute and Class’, in Farber (ed.),Philosophical Thought in France and United States, Buffalo.

  • Fitch, Frederick: 1949, ‘The Problem of the Morning Star and the Evening Star’,Philosophy of Science 16, 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanger, Stig: 1957,Provability in Logic, Stockholm.

  • Marcus, Ruth Barcan et al.: 1962, ‘Discussion on the Paper of Ruth B. Marcus’,Synthese 14, 132–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, C. J.: 1983,Malebranche and British Philosophy, Oxford University Press.

  • Ramsey, F. P.: 1931, ‘Truth and Probability’,Foundations of Mathematics, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Quine, W. V. O.: 1949, ‘Designation and Existence’, in H. Feigl and W. Sellars (eds.),Readings in Philosophical Analysis (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.), Reprinted fromThe Journal of Philosophy 36, 701–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Quentin: 1993,Language and Time, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Quentin: 1995, ‘Marcus, Kripke and the Origin of the New Theory of Reference’,Synthese, this issue, pp. 179–189.

  • Smith, Quentin: (forthcoming) ‘The Metaphysical Necessity of Natural Laws’.

  • Smith, Quentin and Craig, William Lane: 1993,Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, Scott: 1995, ‘Revisionism about Reference: A Reply to Smith’,Synthese, this issue, pp. 191–216.

  • Smullyan, Arthur: 1947, Review of Quine's ‘The Problem of Interpreting Modal Logic’,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 12, 139–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smullyan, Arthur: 1948, ‘Modality and Description’,The Journal of Symbolic Logic 13, 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, Western Michigan University, 49008, Kalemazoo, MI

    Quentin Smith

Authors
  1. Quentin Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, Q. Marcus and the new theory of reference: A reply to Scott Soames. Synthese 104, 217–244 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063871

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063871

Keywords