Contingent Identity Author(s): Allan Gibbard Source

36 Pages·2016·3.19 MB·English

Contingent Identity
Author(s): Allan Gibbard
Source: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May, 1975), pp. 187-221
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30226117
Accessed: 07-02-2016 23:17 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Philosophical Logic.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ALLAN GIBBARD
CONTINGENTI DENTITY'
Thisb rieff or contingenitd entityb eginsw ith an exampleU. nderc ertain
conditionsI, shalla rguea, clays tatuei s identicawl itht he pieceo f clayo f
whichi t is made- or at leasti t is plausiblteo claims o. If indeedt he statue
andt he pieceo f claya rei denticalI, shalls how,t hent he identityi s con-
tingent:t hati s to say,w heres is the statuea ndc the pieceo f clay.
s = c &0 (s exists& c exists& s * c). (1)
Thisc laimo f contingenitd entity,i f true,h asi mportanrta mificationLs.a ter
I shalld evelopt heorieso f concretet hingsa ndp ropern amesw hicha re
neededt o fit the claim.T heset heoriest ogetherf orma coherenta lternative
to theoriesw hichh oldt hat all truei dentitiesf ormedw ith propern amesa re
necessar-y a plausiblae lternativeI, s halla rguew, ithm anya dvantages.
Mostp urportedex ampleso f suchc ontingenitd entityf ail: that much,I
think,h asb eens hownb y SaulK ripke'rse centw ork( 1971, 1972). Kripke's
workh ast ransformetdh e subjectso f necessitya ndr eferencea, ndt he usual
exampleso f contingenitd entityd ependo n accountso f thoses ubjectsw hich
Kripke'as ttacksu ndermineT. ake,f ori nstanceo, ne of Frege'se xampleso f
a posterioriid entity,s omewhart eworded(1 892, p. 57).
If Hesperuesx ists,t henH esperus= Phosphorus. (2)
Ont he accounto f necessityw hichp revailedb eforeK ripkea, truthi s neces-
saryo nly if it canb e knowna priori Nowa s Fregep ointedo ut, (2) is clearly
a posterioris,i ncei t reportsa discoveryw hichc ouldo nly haveb eenm adeb y
observationO. nt he old accountt, hen,( 2), althoughtr ue,i s not a necessary
truth.K ripke'as ttacksu nderminteh is accounto f necessarytr utha sa priori
truth.W hethesro methingis a necessarytr uth,h e arguesi,s not a mattero f
how we cank nowi t, but of whetherit mighth aveb eenf alsei f the world
hadb eend ifferenta: propositionis a necessarytr uthi f it wouldh aveb een
truei n anyp ossibles ituationT. hen ecessary-contingednits tinctiona ndt he
a priori- a posteriordi istinctiont,h en,a ren ot drawnin the samew ay,a nd
to provea truthc ontingenti,t is not enoughs implyt o showt hati t is a
posterior(i1 971, p. 150; 1972,p p.2 60-4).
Journaol f PhilosophicLalo gic4 (1975)1 87-221. All RightsR eserved
Copyright@ 1975 by D. Reidel PublishingC ompany,D ordrecht-Holland
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 ALLAN GIBBARD
Kripke'as ttacksa lsou nderminaec countso f referencwe hichw ouldm ake
(2) a contingenttr uth.O nb oth Russell'tsh eory( 1905) of descriptionasn d
the later" cluster"th eory,a nameg etsi ts referencein somew ay fromt he
beliefso f the personw hou sesi t. On Russell'vs iew,t he heavenlyb ody
Hesperuos f whicht he ancientss pokew ouldb e the thingw hichf ittedc ertain
beliefst hey hada boutH esperuso;n the clustert heory,i t wouldb e the thing
whichf itteda preponderancoef theirb eliefsa bouti t. Nowt he ancients'
beliefsa boutH esperuas ndt heirb eliefsa boutP hosphoruws eres ucht hat,i n
somep ossiblew orlds,o ne thingw ouldf it the formera nda nothert he latter.
On sucha n accounto f propern ames,t hen,( 2) wouldb e falsei n some
possiblew orlds,a ndi s thereforec ontingent.
I shalln ot repeatK ripke'as ttackso n the descriptiona ndc lustert heories
of propern ames( 1972, pp. 254-60, 284-308). Myp urposeh erei s to
arguet hate veni f thesea ttacksa res uccessfult,h erem ayw ell remains ome
contingenitd entitiesc onsistingo f propern amesT. he identityo f Hesperus
andP hosphoruiss not contingento, n the theoriesI shalld evelopb, ut I shall
givea n examplew hichi s. Kripke'as ttacksi,f I amr ight,t ransformth e
subjecto f contingenitd entity,b ut they do not eliminateit .
I
In whats orto f casem ighta statues be identicawl ith the pieceo f clay,c ,
of whichi t is made?I dentityh erei s to be takeni n a strict,t imelesss ense,
not as merei dentityd urings omep eriodo f time.F ort wo thingst o be strictly
identicalt,h ey must havea ll propertieisn commonT. hatm eans,a mong
othert hings,t hat they musts tartt o exist at the samet ime andc easet o exist
at the samet ime.I f we aret o construcat casei n whicha statuei s identical
with a pieceo f clay,t hen,w e shalln eedp ersistenccer iteriafo r statuesa nd
pieceso f clay- criteriafo r whent hey startt o exist andw hent hey ceaset o
exist.
Takef irstt he pieceo f clay.H ereI do not meant he portiono f clay of
whicht he piecec onsistsw, hichm ayg o on existinga ftert he pieceh asb een
brokenu p or mergedw itho therp ieces.I shallc allt his clayo f whicht he
piecec onsistsa portiono f clay;a portiono f clay,a s I amu singt he term,
canb e scatteredw idelya ndc ontinuet o exist. HereI ama skinga bouta piece
or lumpo f clay.
A lumps tickst ogether:it s partss tickt o eacho ther,d irectlyo r through
other parts, and no part of the lump sticks to any portion of clay which is
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTINGENTID ENTITY 189
not parto f the lump.T he exactn atureo f thiss tickingr elationw ill not
matterh ere;i t is a familiarr elationw hichh oldsb etweenp artso f a solid
object,b ut not betweenp artso f a liquid,p owdero, r heapo f solido bjects.
Wek now,t hen,w hati t is for two portionso f clayt o be partso f the same
lumpo f claya t a timet , andi f they are,I shalls ayt hatt hey ares tuckt o
eacho thera t t.
Forh ow long,t hen,d oesa pieceo f clayp ersist?A s a firsta pproximation,
the criteriam ightb e put as follows.A pieceo f clayc onsistso f a portionP
of clay.I t comesi nto existencew hena ll the partso f P comet o be stuckt o
eacho ther,a ndc easet o be stuckt o anyc layw hichi s not parto f P. It ceases
to existw hent he partso f P ceaset o be stuckt o eacho thero r comet o be
stuckt o clayw hichi s not in P. Thusa pieceo f clayc anb e formede ither
by stickings mallerp ieceso f clayt ogethero r by breakingit off a largerp iece
of clay,a ndi t canb e destroyede itherb y breakinigt aparto r by stickingit
to otherp ieceso f clay.
Thiss tandardis probablyto o strict;w e oughtt o allowf or sucht hingsa s
weara ndt he adherencoef clayd ustt o a wet pieceo f clay.N othingw ill
changet,h ough,f or my purposesi,f we allowt he portiono f clayw hich
composesa pieceo f clayt o changes lowlyo vert ime.I n the actualw orld,
then, a pieceo f claym ightb e characterizebdy a functionP fromi nstantsto
portionso f clay.I n orderf or it to characterizae p ieceo f clay,t he function
P wouldh avet o satisfyt he followingc onditions.
(a) Thed omaino f P is ani ntervaol f timeT .
(b) For anyi nstantt in T, P(t) is a portiono f clayt he partso f which,
at t, areb oth stuckt o eacho thera ndn ot stuckt o any clay
particlews hicha ren ot parto f P(t).
(c) Thep ortionso f clayP (t) changew itht only slowly,i f at all. (I
shallg iven o exacts tandarodf slownessh ere,b ut one mightb e
stipulatedif anythingh ingedo n it.)
(d) No functionP * whichs atisfies( a), (b), and( c) extendsP , in the
senset hatt he domaino f P* properlyin cludest he domaino f P
andt he functionP is P* withi ts domainr estricted.
Botho n thiss tandardt,h en,a ndo n the earliers, trictero ne, a pieceo f
clayc omesi nto existencew henp artsi n it ares tuckt o eacho thera nd
unstuckf roma ll otherc lay,a ndg oeso ut of existencew heni ts partsc easet o
be stuck to each other or become stuck to other clay. That is what I shall
need for what follows.
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 ALLAN GIBBARD
Whatn, ow,a ret he persistenccer iteriafo r clays tatues?B y a statueh ere,
I do not meana shapeo f whicht herec ouldb e moret hano ne token,b ut a
concretep articulatrh ing:d istinctc lays tatues,a s I amu singt he term,m ay
comeo ut of the samem old.A clays tatuec onsistso f a pieceo f clayi n a
specifics hape.I t lasts,t hen,a s longa s the pieceo f clayl astsa ndk eepst hat
shape.I t comesi ntob eingw hent he pieceo f clay firste xistsa ndh ast hat
shape,a ndi t goeso ut of existencea s soona s the pieceo f clayc easest o exist
or to havet hat shape.
Thesec riteriato o mayb e overlys trict:a gainw e mayw antt o allowf or
slow changeso f shapef romw ear,a ccretiona, nds lightb endingS. o let us
say, a clays tatuep ersistsa s longa s the pieceo f clayi t is madeo f persistsa nd
changess hapeo nly slowly.
I do not claimt hat the criteriaI haveg ivena rep reciselys et fortht hat
way in ourc onceptuaslc hemeI. do thinkt hat the criteriaI haveg ivenf it at
leastr oughlyw hatw e say abouts tatuesa ndp ieceso f clay.M ya rgument
will dependo n no suchc laim,t hough,a ndf or all I shallh avet o say,t he
criteriaI haveg ivenm ighth aveb eenp urelys tipulativeI. do needt o make
one claimf or thosec riteriaI: claimt hat as I haved efinedt hem,p ieceso f
claya ndc lays tatuesa reo bjects.T hati s to say, they canb e designatedw ith
propern ames,a ndt he logicw e ordinariluy se will still apply.T hati s all,
strictlys peakingt,h at I needt o claimf or the criteriaI haveg iven.
Noww e arei n a betterp ositiont o ask,a rea clays tatuea ndt he pieceo f
clayo f whichi t is madei dentical?T he persistenccer iteriaI haveg ivenm ake
it cleart hato ften the two ared istinct.I n a typicalc ase,a pieceo f clayi s
broughtin to existenceb y breakingit off froma biggerp ieceo f clay.I t then
gets shapeds, ay, into the formo f an elephantW. itht he finishingto uches,
a statueo f an elephantc omesi nto being.T hes tatuea ndt he pieceo f clay
thereforeh aved ifferentp ropertiest:h e timest hey startt o exist ared ifferent,
andw hereasth e statueh ast he propertyo f beinge lephant-shapeads longa s
it exists,t he pieceo f clayd oesn ot. Sinceo ne hasp ropertietsh e otherl acks,
the two aren ot identica(lc f. Quine,1 950,S ec. 1).
Supposet, hough,a clays tatues tartst o exist at the samet ime as the piece
of clay of whichi t is made,a ndc easest o exist at the samet imea s the piece
of clayc easest o exist.W illt he statuet henb e identicawl itht he pieceo f
clay?I t is indeedp ossiblef or a statuet o enduref or preciselyth e samep eriod
of timea s its pieceo f clay,a s the persistenccer iteriaI haveg ivenm akec lear.
Considetrh e followings tory.
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTINGENT IDENTITY 191
I makea clays tatueo f the infantG oliathi n two pieces,o ne the part
abovet he waista ndt he othert he partb elowt he waist.O nceI finisht he two
halves,I stickt hemt ogethert, herebyb ringingin to existences imultaneously
a new pieceo f claya nda new statue.A dayl aterI smasht he statue,t hereby
bringingto an endb oth statuea ndp ieceo f clay.T hes tatuea ndt he piece
of clayp ersistedd uringe xactlyt he samep eriodo f time.
Here,I amt emptedt o say, the statuea ndt he pieceo f clay arei dentical.
Theyb egana t the samet ime,a ndo n anyu suala ccountt, hey hadt he same
shape,l ocation,c olor,a nds o fortha t eachi nstanti n theirh istory;e very-
thingt hath appenedto one happenedto the other;a ndt he act that
destroyedth e one destroyedth e other.I f the statuei s an entityo vera nd
abovet he pieceo f clayi n thats hape,t hens tatuess eemt o takeo n a ghostly
air.N o doubto there xplanationosf whatt he statuei s canb e offered,b ut
the hypothesisth att he statuea ndp ieceo f claya rei denticasl eemsw ell
worthe xploring.
If indeedt he statuea ndp ieceo f claya ret he samet hing,t hen their
identityi s contingentI.t is contingentt,h ati s to sayi n the senseo f (1) at
the beginningo f this paper(. 1) usesp ropern ames,a nds o let me namet he
statuea ndt he lump:t he statueI shallc all' Goliath't;h e pieceo f clay,
'Lumpl'N. amingth e pieceo f clay,t o be sure,s eemss trangeb, ut that,p re-
sumablyi,s becauseit is unusuatlo namep ieceso f clay,n ot becausep ieces
of claya reu nnamableW. itht hesen ames(, 1) becomes
Goliath= Lumpl& O (Goliathex ists& Lumple xists&
Goliath # Lumpl). (3)
It is in this senset hatI wantt o claimt hatG oliath= Lumpcl ontingently.
Supposet, hen,t hatG oliath= LumplT. hent heiri dentityi s contingent
in the senseo f (3). Fors upposeI hadb roughtL umpiln to existencea s
Goliathj,u st as I actuallyd id,b ut beforet he clayh ada chancet o dry,I
squeezedit into a ball.A t that point,a ccordintgo the persistenccer iteriaI
haveg iven,t he statueG oliathw ouldh avec easedt o exist,b ut the pieceo f
clay Lumpwl oulds tille xist in a new shape.H enceL umpwl ouldn ot be
Goliathe, vent houghb oth existed.W ew ouldh ave
Lumple xists& Goliathe xists& Goliath0 Lumpl.
If in fact,t hen,G oliath= Lumplt, henh erei s a caseo f contingenitd ent-
ity. In fact Goliath = Lumpl,b ut had I destroyed the statue Goliath by
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 ALLAN GIBBARD
squeezingit , theni t wouldh aveb eent he caset hat, althoughb oth existed,
Goliath4 LumplT. hei dentityi s contingentt,h en,i n the senseg iveni n (3).
II
Thec laimt hatG oliath= Lumplt, hen,h asi mportanct onsequencefso r the
logico f identity.H owc ant he claimb e evaluated?
Initiallya, t least,t he claims eemsp lausibleG. oliatha ndL umple xist
duringp reciselyth e samep eriodo f time,a nda t eachi nstantd uringt hat
period,t hey have,i t woulds eem,t he sames hape,c olor,w eight,l ocation,
ands o forth:t hey sharea ll theiro bviousp roperties.
The claimt hatG oliath= Lumplm, oreoverf,i ts a systematica ccounto f
statuesa ndp ieceso f clay.A clays tatueo rdinarilby eginst o exist only after
its pieceo f clayd oes.I n suchc ases,i t seemsr easonablteo say, the statuei s
a temporasl egmenot f the pieceo f clay- a segmentw hiche xtendsf or the
periodo f timed uringw hicht he pieceo f clayk eepsa particulars,t atuesque
shape.H ere,t hen,i s a systematica ccounto f the relationb etweena statue
andi ts pieceo f clay.B y that account,h owevert,h erew illb e casesi n which
a clays tatuei s identicawl ithi ts pieceo f clay.F ori n somec asest he very
temporasl egmenot f the pieceo f clayw hichc onstitutesth e statuee xtends
for the entirel ife of the pieceo f clay.I n sucha case,t he segmentis the piece
of clayi n its entiree xtent:t he statuea ndt he pieceo f claya rei dentical.2
Thatl eadst o my mainr easonf orw antingt o say thatG oliath= Lumpl.
Concreteth ingsl, ike statuesa ndp ieceso f clay,a rea parto f the physical
world,a ndw e ought,i t seemst o me, to havea systematicp hysicala ccount
of them.C oncreteth ings,I wantt o maintaina, rem adeu p in somes imple,
canonicawl ay fromf undamentaplh ysicael ntities.N oww hatI haves aido f
the relationb etweena statuea ndi ts pieceo f clay fits sucha generavl iewo f
concretet hings.S upposef, or examplew, e takep oint-instanttso be our
fundamentaplh ysicael ntities,a ndl et a concretet hingb e a set of point-
instantsI. n that case,G oliath= Lumpls implyb ecauset hey aret he sames et
of point-instantSs,u pposein steadw e takep articletso be ourf undamental
physicael ntities,a ndl et a concretet hingb e a changingse t of particles-
whichm ightm eana functionf romi nstantsin timet o sets of particlesT. hen
againG, oliath= Lumplb, ecausea t eachi nstantt hey consisto f the same
set of particlesN. ow particlesa ndp oint-instantasr et he sortso f thingsw e
might expect to appeari n a well-confirmedf undamentalp hysics - in that
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTINGENT IDENTITY 193
parto f an eventuapl hysicsw hichg ivest he fundamentalal wso f the universe.
A systema ccordintgo whichG oliath= Lumplt, hen,m ayw ell allowc on-
cretet hingst o be madeu p in a simplew ay frome ntitiest hata ppearin well-
confirmedfu ndamentaplh ysicsC. oncreteth ingst, hen,c anb e givena place
in a comprehensivveie wo f the world.
In the resto f this papert, hen,I shallw orko ut a theorya ccordintgo
whichG oliath= LumplC. oncreteth ings,f or allI shalls ay, mayb e either
setso f point-instantosr changingse tso f particlest;h e Appendixg ivesa n
accounto f concretet hingsa s sets of point-instantTs.h es ectionsw hich
followd evelopa theoryo f propern amesa nda theoryo f modala ndd is-
positionapl ropertiefso r concretet hings.
III
If, as I wantt o claim,G oliath= Lumplt,h enh ow do propern amesl ike
'Goliatha' nd' Lumplw' ork?K ripkeg ivesa n accounto f propern amesf rom
whichi t followst hat Goliathc annotb e identicawl ith Lumplt;h usi f Kripke's
weret he only plausiblea ccounto f propern amest, hent he claimt hatG oliath
= Lumpwl ouldh avet o be abandonedI.n fact,t hough,a cceptingth at
Goliath= Lumplle adst o an alternativaec counto f propern ames,w hich,I
shalla rguei,s fully coherenta nda t leasta s plausiblae s Kripke's.
Kripke'as ccounto f propern amesis roughlyt his.W ei n the actualw orld
use propern amesb oth to talka boutt he actualw orlda ndt o talka bout
wayst he worldm ighth aveb een.A ccordingto Kripkei,f a propern amed e-
notesa thingi n the actualw orld,t heni n talko f non-actuasli tuationst,h e
name,i f it denotesa t all, simplyd enotest hats amet hing.A propern amei s
a rigidd esignatori:t referst o the samet hingi n talko f any possiblew orldi n
whicht hatt hinge xists,a ndi n talko f any otherp ossiblew orld,i t referst o
nothingi n thatw orld( 1972, pp. 269-70).
Nowi f all propern amesa rer igidd esignatortsh, enG oliathc annotb e
identicawl ith Lumpla s I havec laimedF. ors upposet hey arei denticalC. all
the actualw orldW oa, ndt he worlda si t wouldb e if I hads queezedt he clay
into a ball W';t hen
(i) In WoG, oliath= Lumpl,
but asI haves hown,
(ii) In W',G oliath* Lumpl.
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 ALLAN GIBBARD
Now if the names' Goliatha' nd' Lumpla' reb oth rigidd esignatortsh, en( i)
and( ii) cannotb oth hold.F ors uppose( i) is true.T hent he names' Goiath'
and' Lumplb' oth denotet he samet hingi n WoH. encei f they areb oth
rigidd esignatortsh, ey both denotet hatt hingi n everyp ossiblew orldi n
whichi t exists,a ndd enoten othingo therwiseS. incet hey eachd enotes ome-
thingi n W',t hey mustt hereforeb oth denotet he samet hingi n W',a nd
thus( ii) mustb e false.
The claimt hatG oliath= Lumplt, hen,i s incompatiblwe ith Kripke's
accounto f propern ames.S upposet,h en,t hatG oliathi s indeedi dentical
with Lumplw; hatv iewo f propern amese merges?H ow,o n thats upposition,
couldw e decidew hethert he name' Goliathi's a rigidd esignatorC? onsider
the situationI. n the actualw orld,' Goliathr' eferst o a thingw hichI made
andt henb roke,w hichi s both a statuea nda pieceo f clay.H encet he name
'Goliathi's a rigidd esignatoirf it referst o that samet hingi n any possible
situationin whicht he thinge xists,a ndr eferst o nothingo therwise.
Whatt, hough,w ouldc onstitute" thats amet hing"i f the statuea ndt he
pieceo f clayw ered ifferent?T aket he situationin W':s upposein steado f
breakingth e statue,a s I actuallyd id,I hads queezedt he clayi nto a ball.
Wouldt hats inglet hingw hichi n factI madea ndt henb roke- whichi n fact
wasb oth a pieceo f claya nda statue- thenb e the statueG oliathw hichI
squeezedo ut of existenceo, r the pieceo f clay Lumpwl hichw ent on exist-
ing afterI squeezedit ?
I canf indn o sensei n the questionT. o askm eaningfullwy hatt hat thing
wouldb e, we mustd esignateit eithera s a statueo r as a pieceo f clay.I t
makess enset o askw hatt he statueG oliathw ouldb e in thats ituation:i t
wouldb e a statue;l ikewisei,t makess enset o askw hatt he pieceo f clay
Lumpwl ouldb e in thats ituation:it wouldb e a pieceo f clay.W hatt hat
thingw ouldb e, though,a partf romt he wayi t is designatedis, a question
withoutm eaning.
A rought heoryb eginst o emergef roma ll this.I f Goliatha nd.L umpal re
the samet hing,a skingw hatt hatt hingw ouldb e in W'a partf romt he way
the thingi s designatedm, akesn o sense.M eaningfuclr oss-worlidd entitieso f
sucht hingsa s statuesi,t beginst o seem,m ustb e identitieqs ua something:
qua statueo rq ual ump,3q uaG oliatho r quaL umpl.I t makess enset o talk
of the "sames tatue"i n differentp ossiblew orlds,b ut no senset o talko f
the "samet hing".
Putm oref ully,w hats eemst o be happeninigs this.P ropern amesl ike
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTINGENT IDENTITY 195
'Goliatho' r 'Lumplr' efert o a thinga s a thingo f a certaink ind:' Goliath'
referst o somethinga s a statue;'L umpl'a, s a lump.F ore achs uchk indo f
thing,t herei s a set of persistenccer iterial,i ket he onesI gavef or statuesa nd
for lumps.4In rarec ases,a t least,o ne thingw illb e of two differentk inds,
with differenpt ersistenccer iteriaa, ndw hereaso ne propern amer eferst o it
as a thingo f one kind,a notherp ropern amew illr efert o it as a thingo f
anotherk ind.I n suchc ases,t he identityf ormedw itht hosen amesi s contin-
gentlyt rue.I t is trueb ecauset he two namesd esignatteh e samet hing,
whichc easest o exista t the samet imeo n both sets of criteriaI. t is contin-
gentb ecauseif the worldh adg oned ifferentlya ftert he thingc amei nto
existencet, he thingm ighth avec easedt o exista t differentt imeso n the two
sets of criteriai:t wouldh aveb eeno ne thingo n one set of persistence
criteriaa, nda nothert hing- perhapas temporasle gmento f the first- on
the seconds et of criteria.
If allt hat is so, it makesn o senset o calla designatorri gido r non-rigibdy
itself.A designatomr ayb e rigidw ithr espectt o a sortal:i t mayb e statue-
rigid,a s' Goliathi's , or it mayb e lump-rigida,s 'Lumpli's . A designatorf,o r
instancei,s statue-rigiidf it designatetsh e sames tatuei n everyp ossible
worldi n whicht hats tatuee xistsa ndd esignatens othingin anyo therp ossible
world.W hatis speciala boutp ropern amesl ike' Goliatha' nd' Lumpri s not
thatt hey arer igidd esignatorsI.t is ratherth ate achi s rigidw ith respectt o
the sortali t invokes'.G oliathr' eferst o its bearera s a statuea ndi s statue-
rigid;'L umplr' eferst o its bearera s a lumpa ndi s lump-rigid.
In short,t hen,i f we acceptt hatG oliath= Lumpal nde xaminet he situa-
tion, a rought heoryo f propern amese mergesA. propern amel ike' Goliath'
denotesa thingi n the actualw orld,a ndi nvokesa sortalw ith certainp ersist-
ence criteriaI.t thend enotest he samet hing-of-that-soinrt e veryp ossible
worldi n whichi t denotesa t all.T hen ame' Goliathi't self,f or instance,
denotesa lumpo f clay andi nvokest he sortals tatue;h encei t denotest he
sames tatuei n everyp ossiblew orldi n whicht hats tatuee xists.
Thatl eavest wo questionsu nansweredF.i rst,h ow doesa namel ike
'Goliath'geitt s referencein the actualw orld?S econd,w hatm akesa thing
in anotherp ossiblew orld" thes ames tatue"a s the one whichi n factI made
andt henb roke?I shallt acklet hiss econdq uestionf irst.
OnceI madem y statue,t hat statuee xisted,a ndn othingt hath appened
fromt heno n couldc hanget he factt hati t hade xistedo r the way it had
comet o exist. It wouldb e thats ames tatuew hetherI subsequentlbyr okei t,
squeezedi t, or sold it. Its origin, then, makes a statue the statue that it is,
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 07 Feb 2016 23:17:55 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions