Posted by Estella on May 7, 2006, at 6:10:31
In reply to Re: Venus calling, posted by zeugma on April 25, 2006, at 22:28:30
>>'''hesperus' and 'phosphorus' share the same referent'' is a contingent fact of the language.
so is "'hesperus' is hesperus." That is not an a priori truth on any account.
sorry for being so pedantic, it's my nature.lol. That is okay. Sorry I read that you were saying venus is venus (the object is identical to itself) is contingent... I missed the quotation marks oops.
> i think hesperous is 'venus in the morning'
> and phosperous is 'venus in the evening'
> (hope i got them the right way around)
> and venus... is the greater object. they are time slices of venus...
> what do you reckon?>>
> hesperus is a name of Venus. 'hesperus is phosphorus' is true, but if hesperus meant 'time slice A of venus' and phosphorus meant 'time slice B of venus', 'hesperus is phosphorus' would be a contradiction.yes. so i guess i'm denying that 'hesperous is phosporous' is true. counterintuitive perhaps... but i reckon thats a better account. hesperous is a time slice of venus and phosperous is a different time slice of venus and so hesperous is a part of venus rather than being strictly identical to it. and phosperous is a (different) part of venus rather than being strictly identical to it. and thus hesperous does not equal phosperous. But they are both (different) parts of venus.
i have seen a similar account of the clarke kent / superman relation. they are both different time slices of (whatever his name is) - the body / person from whatever planet he is from. that way you can say 'superman wears glasses' is false while 'clarke kent wears glasses' is true.
that way you can say 'hesperous appears in the morning sky' is true (if it is indeed 'cause i might have them the wrong way around) and 'hesperous appears in the evening sky' is false. and 'phosperous appears in the morning sky' is false. and 'phosperous appears in the evening sky' is true. and different parts of venus appear in the morning and evening sky. and you can get yourself a nice account without needing to countenance fregean senses ;-)
(though i like fregean senses...)
just like the guy from wherever planet he is from sometimes wears glasses and othertimes not... because the clarke kent time slice wears glasses while the superman time slice does not...
what do ya think?
(maybe ontologically bloated... three objects instead of one... but if you want one object you need how many fregean senses? three i do believe (plus one object) or maybe only two plus an object? surely venus is a different concept from either hesperous or phosperous...)
?
poster:Estella
thread:618106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060331/msgs/640883.html