Obrona deskrypcyjnej teorii odniesienia nazw. Część II. Odpowiedź na argumenty semantyczne Kripkego
In defence of a descriptive theory of reference for proper names Part II. A response to Kripke’s semantic arguments

Summary/Abstract: This article is the second part of my defence of a non-classical descriptive theory of reference-fixing for proper names against objections raised by Kripke. In part I (in the previous issue), I defined the notion of descriptivism, showed how taking the parameter of time into account influences the formulation of theses of descriptivism and explained why Kripke’s modal objection does not apply to descriptive theory of reference. I then formulated theses of the defended descriptive theory of reference-fixing and answered Kripke’s epistemic objection. In this paper, I answer Kripke’s semantic objection against descriptivism, considered to be his strongest and most persuasive argumentation (Salmon 2005, p. 29), because it concerns the use of proper names in simple contexts without epistemic or modal operators. The semantic objection consists of a number of arguments, which I answer in turn. In section II.1, I explain the notion of knowledge required by the defended version of descriptivism. Next I argue that the only moments when knowledge of descriptions is required are those when a name is bestowed or learned, and I show that, in light of the defended theory, knowledge of descriptions at those moments is necessary and sufficient for knowing a name. In section II.2, I answer all the strands of the semantic objection. In section II.3, I show that the defended version of descriptivism has all the virtues traditionally associated with descriptive theories.

• Details
• Contents