Philosophical Studies

, Volume 158, Issue 1, pp 43–58

Rigidification and attitudes

Article

Abstract

Scott Soames has argued that Rigidified Descriptivism wrongly predicts that one cannot believe, say, that Joe Strummer was born in 1952 without having a belief about the actual world. Soames suggests that agents in other possible worlds may have this belief, but may lack any beliefs about the actual world, a world that they do not occupy and have no contact with. I respond that this argument extends to other popular actuality-involving analyses. In order for Soames to hold on to his argument against Rigidified Descriptivism, he must provide alternatives to these analyses. I argue that there is reason to think that these alternatives are not forthcoming, so Soames should surrender his argument against Rigidified Descriptivism.

Keywords

Rigidified Descriptivism Modality Attitude ascriptions Indexicals 

References

  1. Braddon-Mitchell, D., & Jackson, F. (1996). Philosophy of mind and cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Davies, M., & Humberstone, L. (1980). Two notions of necessity. Philosophical Studies, 38, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Divers, J. (2002). Possible worlds. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Forbes, G. (1989). The languages of possibility. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Hodes, H. (1984). On modal logics which enrich first-order S5. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13, 423–454.Google Scholar
  6. Hughes, G. E., & Creswell, M. J. (1996). A new introduction to modal logic. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kripke, S. (1981). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Nelson, M. (2002). Descriptivism defended. Nous, 36, 408–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Plantinga, A. (1982). The nature of necessity. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sainsbury, M. (2002). Russell on names and communication. In M. Sainsbury (Ed.), Departing from Frege (pp. 85–101). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schlenker, P. (2003). A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy, 26, 29–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Soames, S. (1998). The modal argument: Wide scope and rigidified descriptions. Nous, 32, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Soames, S. (2004). Reply to Ezcurdia and Gómez-Torrente. Crítica, 36, 83–114.Google Scholar
  16. Soames, S. (2005). Reference and description. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Van Inwagen, P. (2003), Actuality and indexicality. In Ontology, identity, and modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations