Skip to main content

Sense/reference distinction



I recently engaged in a stimulating exchange with an Objectivist on twitter. I'll put it together here in a way one can't do in twitter's concision-is-everything format.

He picked the fight. There were too few Jamesians with whom to argue, so he found me, and made the sweeping, but characteristically O-ist, declaration that James' pragmatism abandoned "principles" for "efficiency."

Of course I responded that this was a canard.

After some back-and-forth we got to the issue of what is a tautology and whether it is a bad thing. When O-ists are pressed on this point, they tend to take the absurd position that every true statement is a tautology. Simply because every true statement says of something that it is, what it is.

The reason this is absurd:  it squashes together "sense" and "reference."

The proper name "Samuel Clemens" and the pen name "Mark Twain" refer to the same man, the same biological organism. Hence they have the same reference. But they don't have the same sense.  One conveys roughly the sense, "the man who wrote Huck Finn," the other conveys the sense, "an individual born in November 1835 in MO..." I could know a number of truths about both Clemens and Twain without knowing that Clemens was Twain.

Thus, if we understand the sense/reference distinction we can understand that the statement "Mark Twain was Mark Twain" is trivial, but the statement "Mark Twain was Samuel Clemens" is substantive, and may for some people at some times represent an important discovery.

How does this bring us back to pragmatism and principles-versus-efficiency? Well, in response to that canard, I had characterized Jamesian pragmatism as a victory in a two-front war, against the upper and the lower dogmatisms, against (speaking very roughly) Hegel and Clifford. In 21st century terms, both dogmatisms are still around, the upper represented by Allan Bloom, (and, I argue, by objectivism), the lower by Daniel Dennett. So it is important to continue re-enacting the Jamesian victory.

Part of this re-enactment has to involve the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. The upper dogmatists tend to dissolve this dichotomy by making all important statements analytical. Leibniz was a fine example of that. The objectivist contention that every truth is a tautology is likewise. The lower dogmatists tend to make the contrary error: they make the analytic/synthetic distinction into an absolute one (hence its renowned employment by David Hume as his "fork.") It cannot be absolute, as William James explicitly explained near the end of Principles of Psychology. It cannot be absolute, but it is real, as a continuum.

And for those of us who wish to avoid both dogmatisms it is important to know where, on the continuum from triviality to substance, one stands at a given moment.

I've rather arbitrarily illustrated this post with a photo of Allan Bloom, above.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…