Skip to main content
Log in

The fallacies of the new theory of reference

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The so-called New Theory of Reference (Marcus, Kripke etc.) is inspired by the insight that in modal and intensional contexts quantifiers presuppose nondescriptive unanalyzable identity criteria which do not reduce to any descriptive conditions. From this valid insight the New Theorists fallaciously move to the idea that free singular terms can exhibit a built-in direct reference and that there is even a special class of singular terms (proper names) necessarily exhibiting direct reference. This fallacious move has been encouraged by a mistaken belief in the substitutional interpretation of quantifiers, by the myth of thede re reference, and a mistaken assimilation of “direct reference” to ostensive (perspectival) identification. Thede dicto vs.de re contrast does not involve direct reference, being merely a matter of rule-ordering (“scope”).

The New Theorists' thesis of the necessity of identities of directly referred-to individuals is a consequence of an unmotivated and arbitrary restriction they tacitly impose on the identification of individuals.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cocchiarella, Nino: 1975a, ‘On the Primary and Secondary Semantics of Logical Necessity’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 4, pp. 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocchiarella, Nino: 1975b, ‘Logical Atomism, Nominalism, and Modal logic’,Synthese 31, pp. 23–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocchiarella, Nino: 1986,Logical Investigations of Predication Theory and the Problem of Universals, Bibliopolis.

  • Donnellan, Keith: 1966, ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’,The Philosophical Review 75, pp. 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, Ronald, Halpern, Joseph Y., Yoram Moses and Moshe Y. Vardi: 1995,Reasoning about Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1956, ‘Identity, Variables and Impredicative Definitions’,Journal of Symbolic Logic 21, pp. 225–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1973,Logic, Language-Games and Information, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1975a, ‘Knowledge by Acquaintance — Individuation by Acquaintance’, inKnowledge of the Known, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 212–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1975b, ‘Objects of Knowledge and Belief’, inThe Intentions of Intentionality, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1980, ‘Standard vs. Nonstandard Logic: Higher Order, Modal and First-Order Logics’, in E. Agazzi (ed.)Modern Logic: A Survey, Boston, D. Reidel, pp. 283–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1982, ‘Is Alethic Modal Logic Possible?’,Acta Philosophica Fennica 35, pp. 89–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1990, ‘Paradigms for Language Theory’, in L. Haaparanta et. al. (eds.),Language, Knowledge, and Intentionality: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Jaakko Hintikka (Acta Philosophica Fennica49), Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki, pp. 181–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko, 1992, ‘Different Constructions in Terms of ‘Knows”, in R. Dancy and E. Sosa (eds.),Companion to Epistemology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: 1996, ‘Knowledge Acknowledged: Knowledge of Propostions vs. Knowledge of Objects’,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, forthcoming.

  • Hintikka, Jaakko: forthcoming,The Principles of Mathematics Revisited, Cambridge University Press.

  • Hintikka, Jaakko, and Merrill B. Hintikka: 1982, ‘Towards a General Theory of Identification’, in Werner Leinfellner et al. (eds.)Language and Ontology: Proceedings of the Sixth International Wittgenstein Symposium, Holder-Oichler-Tempsky, Vienna, pp. 137–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko and Jack Kulas: 1985,Anaphora and Definite Descriptions, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, Jaakko and Gabriel Sandu: 1989, ‘Informational Independence as a Semantical Phenomenon’, in J. E. Fenstad et al. (eds.),Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science VIII, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 571–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanger, Stig: 1957,Provability in Logic, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, David: 1969, ‘Quantifying In’, in Donald Davidson and Jaakko Hintikka (eds.),Words and Objections, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 178–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, David: 1989, ‘Demonstratives’, in J. Almog et al. (eds.),Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul: 1972, ‘Naming and Necessity’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.),Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 253–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul: 1976, ‘Is There a Problem about Substitutional Quantification?’ in G. Evans and J. McDowell (eds.),Truth and Meaning, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 325–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul: 1977, ‘Identity and Necessity’, in Stephen P. Schwartz (ed.),Naming, Necessity and Natural Kinds, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., pp. 66–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul: 1979a, ‘Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference’, in P. French et al. (eds.),Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 6–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, Saul: 1979b, ‘A Puzzle about Belief’, in A. Margalit (ed.),Meaning and Use, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 239–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Ruth Barcan: 1947, ‘The Identity of Individuals in a Strict Functional Calculus of Second Order,Journal of Symbolic Logic 12, pp. 12–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Ruth Barcan: 1961, ‘Modalities and Intensional Languages’,Synthese 13, pp. 303–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Ruth Barcan: 1961, ‘Interpreting Quantification’,Inquiry 51, pp. 252–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Ruth Barcan: 1972, ‘Quantification and Ontology’,Nous 6, pp. 240–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Ruth Barcan: 1995,Modalities, Oxford University Press.

  • Montague, Richard: 1974,Formal Philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O.: 1939, ‘Designation and Existence’,The Journal of Philosophy 36, pp. 701–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O.: 1961, ‘Reply to Professor Marcus’,Synthese 13, pp. 323–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand: 1905, ‘On Denoting’,Mind 14, pp. 479–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Bertrand: 1918, ‘Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Descrption’, inMysticism and Logic, Longmans, Green & Co., London, pp. 209–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandu, Gabriel: forthcoming, ‘Independence-Friendly Logic and Truth-Definitions’,Journal of Philosophical Logic.

  • Smith, Quentin: 1994, ‘Marcus, Kripke, and the Origin of the New Theory of Reference’ (abstract),Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 68, no. 1, p. 94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaina, Lucia M.: 1990, ‘What' and ‘where’ in the Human Visual System: Two Hierarchies of Visual Modalities’,Synthese 83, pp. 49–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig: 1922,Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hintikka, J., Sandu, G. The fallacies of the new theory of reference. Synthese 104, 245–283 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063872

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01063872

Keywords

Navigation