About Proper Names

Abstract

'It is not possible to state a simple strong generalization about proper names. One can only say what is so for the most part and that must be qualified.' I made that claim some fifteen years ago. I still believe it. But the popularity of Saul Kripke's lectures on names suggests that reasons for believing such a claim are worth restating.2 Kripke offers no theory of proper names. One may suspect him of proposing one he says but he hopes not because he's sure that any theory is wrong.3 He presents not a theory but what he calls a 'picture'.4 His picture casts the following notions in starring roles: baptism ostension description and what he calls 'rigid designation'. Kripke fixes his and our attention on baptism at least fourteen times which is odd: taken literally or figuratively the notion is of some slight importance only in connection with some proper names.5 Literally a given or so-called 'Christian' name may be given to a human in the performance of a baptismal act.6 Even ecclesiastical law however recognizes that not every one is baptized. In the case of a name given by parents without recourse to baptism the name was held to acquire force only by repute. Taken figuratively Kripke would seem to be concerned with some 'initial act of naming'7 in which a name is given. Given names generally have been given to those whose names they are. But not invariably. 'Sean' is a given name: it was not given to Sean O'Casey. He was given the name 'John'. 'I'm goin' to call you Sean from this out, said the conductor, as he held Johnny's hand at parting' so said O'Casey who referred and continued for some time thereafter

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.