Unformatted text preview: contrary to appearances, a referential expression. Her argument is a reduction:
A1. “I” is a referential term.
A2. A referential term refers via the mediation of a Fregean sense or mode of presentation.
24 Acceptance of A1 commits us to
A3 “I” has a referent.
A4 “I” is either a name or a demonstrative. From A4 and A3 Anscombe goes on to infer A5 The referent of “I” is an object or body.
25 From A5 and A2, we get
A6 “I” is associated with an egocentric and unsharable mode of presentation. 26 The use of a name for an object is connected with a conception of that object. And so we are driven to look for something that, for each ‘I’user, will be the conception related to the supposed name ‘I’, as the conception of a city is to the names ‘London’ and ‘Chicago’, that of a river to ‘Thames’ and ‘Nile’, that of a man to ‘John’ and ‘Pat’. Such a conception is re...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 10/26/2011 for the course PHIL 2504 at Carleton CA.
- Winter '08