Thursday, April 19, 2007

3.3411 Thus one could say: The actual name is that which all symbols that signify an object have in common. It would then follow that no composition at all is essential for a name.

P&McG are simply wrong here, as Black (p. 152) points out.

What is essential to a name is that it names the particular thing it names. If it is the name of a Tractarian object, a point in logical space, then it is as simple as a name can be. It is simply a name that simply names a simple object. Anything complex in the name would be inessential. On the other hand, the actual name referred to here would, or at least could, have no discernible features at all. No sound, or appearance, for instance. While it becomes simpler it also becomes invisible. Could it be a phantom?

No comments: