Kirpke and Proper Names sample essay

The theory provided by Kirpke that the proper names are generally not the synonyms with their definite description can be applied to the names of the countries and cities as well.

As an example let us take “France”. A definite description for that country would be: a State that is situated on the south-west of the Europe, is washed by Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea and has borders with Germany, Luxemburg, Spain, Switzerland, etc. In theory, it is easily possible that in that place another country could have been situated. Or it could have happened so that France today would have been located in the other part of the continent or even world. Also, it is not necessarily that only France is positioned in the described area. Though if we look at the actual picture of the world’s map today we find that France is found exactly where it is described. So in stating tat the definition that we give is true we have to use France as a rigid designator, which is suggested by Kirpke as the main characteristic of a proper name.

As another example, let us take the United States of America. Usually we would define this country in the following way: an Empire that consists of fifty two states is located in the southern half of the Northern America, is washed by Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and is a symbol of democracy and justice in the world. Again, let us investigate this definition.

Could it be so [maybe if some historical events went in a different way] that another country (ex. Canada or Mexico or other) would be located in the southern half of the Northern America, and would be washed by Pacific and Atlantic Oceans or that some other country may also have that feature? Yes. Is it true that not only United States of America represent to everyone in the world democracy and justice? Absolutely, we can take such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, citizen of which are in major hostile to the United States, as a bright example. Could it happen so that the country would consist of less or more States then fifty two? The answer is yes, under the condition that some historical events, such as the reign of Alexander the Third of Russia, went differently. Though still, if we look on the real situation: the United States are geographically situated exactly as defined, in spite of the fact that some countries and individuals are not very receptive of the ideas that the United States proclaim, they are still the symbol of democracy and justice, as well as they consist of fifty two states. So, again we need to take “the United States of America” as a rigid designator, because if we identify them with their definition we may refer to a wrong object. For example if we say that the country that is located between Pacific and Atlantic Oceans is a symbol of democracy and justice in the world that would be a false statement. If we look on the map we will find that we actually could refer to Guatemala.

Now let us look at the proper names of the cities and their definitions. Let’s take New York as an example. The most common definitions for it would be the following: a huge business city in the United States, located in the east of the country, there are several million citizen living in it. The situation is very similar to the one with the countries.

If we assume that the proper name and its definition are synonymous, then the statement: “A huge business city in the United States is located in the east of the country” would equal the statement: “New York is located in the east of the country”. If we investigate those two statements we will find that the first part of the first statement would not necessarily refer to the first part of the second statement. There is another huge business city in the United States that is also located in the east of the country – Philadelphia. So we need to look at “New York” as at the rigid designator also. Therefore we see that the statement of Kirpke that the proper names are in general not synonymous to their definitions is also true for the proper names of the cities.

Now let’s examine how can this theory can be applied to the situation with the proper names of individual people and whether there is any difference between it and the situation with proper names of the cities and countries. From my point of view, the argument suggested by Kirpke is also working quite well when we are speaking about the proper names of individuals. There are several reasons for that.

First of all, according to Kirpke, even though the proper name is not synonymous to its definition, it still has to have one. If we are speaking about the names of the people, first of all – it is usually very difficult to give a clear associating description to it, moreover, the facts known about the person will not always be the same for everyone. (Even though Einstein is usually associated with a man who had invented a theory of Relativity, it is not a fact that he actually did invent it, as well as it is not necessarily that Einstein is a true name of a person who did invent the theory of Relativity as well it is not necessarily that by referring to Einstein everyone associates him with the same definition).

If we look at the situation with Einstein closer, we will also figure that even if some person figures out that for example Einstein is not who we think he was and the theory was developed by another person, let’s say Anderson as we know him, and starts by mentioning a person who developed a theory of Relativity meaning Anderson, the other person to whom he is talking will still associate it with Einstein, since a first person is still referring to Einstein even if the description that he is associating him with identifies Anderson.

Another good example of that would be the following: a child was born. He was named Richard Watson. The parents are speaking about him and his life everywhere. With the help of rumors the news about Richard Watson spread along the town. In the other end of the town lives some old lady, who is at a given time speaking about that Richard Watson. She does not remember who she learned about him from. Neither has she known who he is or what is he up to. She might have an absolutely wrong impression about Richard Watson. Nevertheless, she is still speaking about the same Richard Watson as his parents.

One more example of implementing the theory of Kirpke about proper names: suppose we all know that a person named Jessica Parker is a beautiful woman, a movie star and a pleasant person. Once again if we will use the definition that we just provided to identify her, we will simply mislead people, because there maybe hundreds of women for whom this definition will also be true. This fact supports the idea that proper names are rigid designators, not necessarily synonyms of their definitions. Also, even if in reality it turns out that, in spite of the fact that we all know that Jessica Parker is a pleasant person, she is rude, selfish and stupid, we still by saying “Jessica Parker” will refer to the same person as before.

As we can see there is no major difference in implementing the theory suggested by Kirpke to the proper names of the countries and cities as well as to the proper names of individual people. It is well seen that no mater what knowledge of a person we posses by referring to his name we will still refer to him, not to another person who is fitting correctly under the definition that we have for the person mentioned above. As far as the situation with the countries, it is quite similar: even if I will think that Tegucigalpa is a capital of New Guinea, I will still by mentioning it will refer to the capital of Honduras.
Order custom essay now!