Skip to main content

Indexical Words and Possible Worlds

SomaliaLinguists sometimes use the term "indexical" for a type of word or sign.

If I understand the point, a word is "indexical" if it presupposes some aspect of the situation in which it is employed.

"Here" is indexical. So, for that matter, is "there." Each presupposes that the speaker is located at a particular place, and that the listener has some idea what that place is.  You ask a friend over the phone, "Do you know where my folder is?" Your friend replies, "Yes, you left it over here." In that case, the speech situation includes the fact that both he and I know that I was at his place the previous night, and I presume (he knows that I will presume) that he is speaking to me now from that home. So, because I understand the indexical use of the term, I know where my folder is.

Likewise "now" is indexical. If I record the phrase "I am having trouble breathing now" and someone plays back that recording the next day, the statement may or may not be true the next day. I might be dead. Or my respiratory distress might be safely in my past, and I might be breathing fine. That doesn't matter. the word "now" is indexical, and it only informs the listener to the extent the listener has some idea when the recording was made.

All of that is critical background for the wonderful metaphysical and contemporary-science question, "Is the word 'actual' indexical?"

From one point of view, "actual" resembles "now" and "here." It is a statement about where/when I (the speaker) am. Perhaps 10 years ago I was nearly in an accident that could have taken my arm off. One possible world is that world in which that accident did happen, and I by this time would be getting quite proficient at the use of my prosthetic arm. But that isn't the "actual" world. I have two arms here. I have two arms now. I have two arms in actuality.

The question, "why is this world the actual one," is (on this line of thought) incoherent. The word "this" in such a context and the word "actual" are both indexical, and are synonyms. So the question resembles, "why is this century the present century?"

Here's a link for those who might want to examine this thought further.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …