{"id":10719,"date":"2011-05-04T15:35:48","date_gmt":"2011-05-04T15:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/05\/04\/the-reference-relation-internal-or-external\/"},"modified":"2011-05-04T15:35:48","modified_gmt":"2011-05-04T15:35:48","slug":"the-reference-relation-internal-or-external","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/05\/04\/the-reference-relation-internal-or-external\/","title":{"rendered":"The Reference Relation: Internal or External?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

What is (linguistic) reference?  Is it a relation?  Edward the Ockhamist assumes that it is and issues the following request:  "To clarify, could I ask both you and Bill whether you think the reference relation is \u2018internal\u2019 or \u2018external\u2019?"<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is an inconsistent tetrad:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. 'Frodo' refers to Frodo<\/span>
2. 'Frodo' exists while Frodo does not. <\/span>
3. Reference is a relation.<\/span>
4. Relations are existence-symmetrical:  the terms (relata) of a relation are such that either all exist or none exist.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Since the members of this quartet cannot all be true, which one will Edward reject?  Given what he has said already, he must reject (4).  But (4) is exceedingly plausible, more plausible by my lights than (1).  I myself would reject (1) by maintaining that there is no linguistic reference to the nonexistent.  It is not there to be referred to!<\/span><\/p>\n

For me, reference is a relation. Is it internal or external?  Being the same color as <\/em>is an example of an internal relation.  If a and b are both red, then that logically suffices for a and b to stand in the same color as<\/em> relation.  Suppose I paint ball a red and then paint ball b (the same shade of) red;  I don't have to do anything else to bring them into the aforementioned relation.  You could say that an internal relation supervenes upon the intrinsic properties of its relata.  <\/span><\/p>\n

But to bring the two balls into the relation of being two feet from each other, I will most likely have to do more than alter their intrinsic properties.  So being two feet from<\/em> is an external relation.  If the balls fall out of that relation they needn't change in any intrinsic respect.  But if the balls cease to stand in the same color as<\/em> relation, then they must alter in some intrinsic respect.<\/span><\/p>\n

In sum, internal relations supervene on the intrinsic properties of their relata while external relations do not.<\/span><\/p>\n

Suppose 'Max' is the name of my cat.  Then 'Max' as I use it has a definite meaning.  The sound I make when I say 'Max' and the cat are both physical items.  Surely they<\/em> do not stand in a semantic relation.  No physical item by itself means anything.  So the semantic relation must connect a meaningful word (a physical item such as a sound or marks on paper 'animated' by a meaning) with the physical referent, the cat in our example.  Suppose the meaning (sense, connotation) of 'Max' is given by a definite description: the only black male feline that enjoys linguine in clam sauce.  Then the relation between the meaningful word 'Max' and the cat will be external since that meaning (sense, connotation) is what it is whether or not the cat exists.<\/span><\/p>\n

If, on the other hand, the meaning of 'Max' = Max, then the semantic relation of reference is internal.  For then the relation is identity, and identity is an internal relation.<\/span><\/p>\n

So it seems that whether reference is external or internal depends on whether reference is routed through sense or is direct. I incline toward the view that reference, since routed through sense, is an external relation.  <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What is (linguistic) reference?  Is it a relation?  Edward the Ockhamist assumes that it is and issues the following request:  "To clarify, could I ask both you and Bill whether you think the reference relation is \u2018internal\u2019 or \u2018external\u2019?" Here is an inconsistent tetrad: 1. 'Frodo' refers to Frodo2. 'Frodo' exists while Frodo does not. 3. Reference … Continue reading “The Reference Relation: Internal or External?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[408,212],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-philosophy-of","category-relations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10719","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}