Name Theory Summary Details Argument Criticism

Concepts are 1.We should not present The mind is not Ajei accuse
not objects or concepts as if they are an object Wiredu of being
entities, and objects(reifying), containing our materialist
Kwesi Empiricali Abstract 2.We can think in abstraction thoughts; the
Wiredu sm nouns are not without using abstract words mind is rather Also accused for
the only way The mind is not an object thoughts and using
of expressing 3. Space and time are not ideas. transcendental
abstraction. intuitions of mind as Kant puts it terms
but empirically determined. If
there is a Time is not an object on it own, concepts(ideas) What are your
difference it is connected to events. were personal
between 4.English words like kindness, entities(objects) criticisms
concept goodness makes these ideas perception ?
(ideas) and seem as objects on their own. In would be
objects(entitie Akan kind is ‘papaye’ it does not impossible
s) make the idea stand as an
object on it own. If ideas were
objects we
Do not admit any existence cannot
unless they are supportable by understand the
empirical evidence or difference
empirically based concepts. between two
objects
In identity statements Frege If A and B refer Russel criticize
expose the falsity that the to the same Frege on the
Names have reference of a word gives thing , ground that it
sense; it is the meaning. Kofi think A=A is not reference
sense that different from that gives truth
FREGE Sense and gives meaning. He proves that it is the sense of from Kofi think value since
Reference The reference a name that gives meaning not A=B (the two there are
of a name the reference. sentences have sentences we
determines different truth can determine
truth value. In substitution he shows that if value when we truth value even
it is reference that gives substituted A when the
The reference meaning then two different with B. names have no
of a name words having the same meaning According to reference.
does not give should have the same truth Frege, the truth
meaning but value, but this is not so. value changed
rather the In compositionality he shows because the What is your
sense of a that when two names have name A and B own critique of
name gives similar reference, the whole have different Frege?
meaning. sentence will still not have the senses and
same meaning even in identity meaning is from
statements. sense that is
why the truth
value change…
same argument
for composition

If one knows
 something it S knows P because there is a Casual
must be causal connection between S connection
caused by and P between S and
another thing. P helps to know
Goldma Knowing There must be There must be reconstruction of knowledge
n a connection important links for us to claim based on
in the cause that someone knows inference
without a something.
break.
If Kofi knows that it rained
because he came out of the
room and saw the compound
wet and if indeed it is the rain
that made the compound wet
then Kofi knows that it rained.
But if it rained and the
compound dried up and
mummy sprinkled water on the
compound and Kofi came to see
the compound wet and then
claims it rained, he did not
really know that it rained. There
is a cut in the connection to the
knowledge
Words can be
used in their Formalist applies logical rules Conversational
literal or to analyze language and sees it Implicature: A
Implicatur conventional as the ideal way but informalist person who in
Grice e forms or in think language should also be saying that p
their non analyzed in natural form has implicated
conventional without using logical symbols . that q, may be
form But Grice thinks both camp are said to have
(implicature) mistaken because words can be conversationally
based on used formally or to imply implicated that
speaker and something else. q if and only if
the context He is observing
the maxims, or
There is a When we apply cooperative at least the CP.
distinction principle in conversation we can Or the Speaker
between what use words in implicature form. thinks listener is
is said and We can say A but implying B. competence to
what one grasp
really implies. The maxims to adhere to in
language is Quantity: provide
the right amount of
information, quality: provide
the right information, relation:
be relevant, and manner: be
clear.
There is a separation between the meaning of logical symbols such as( v , ~, ^ )and their supposed

corresponding words such as( or , not, and). In other words logical symbol such as ~ (negation) and
the word not are different in meaning
Formalist think the logical symbols are better as it helps to construct
formulas for analyzing arguments and they help provide rules for
analyzing language objectively. They consider natural language to be
imperfect which is made perfect by the logical symbols since the symbols
gives them definite meaning. Logical symbols have definite truth value
We must construct ideal language that uses logical devices to make
arguments and philosophical statements scientific with clarity and
precision.
Informalist think that it is misplaced to demand that language should be
precise and ideal for scientific purpose only, for language serves many
purpose and a lot inferences and arguments are made in natural language
that cannot be made with the logical symbols. We can simply know the
meaning of words without the logical analysis. We must allow allow
analysis in natural language where words have different meanings. The
logic in natural language is different from the logic done using logical
symbols, rules and devices. Sometimes the arguments even come into
conflict with each other. Formal logic and it devices(symbols) can help
make arguments sometimes but is should not supersede analysis in
natural language.

What is your solution for the difference between the formalist and
informalist debate
1. Formalists see the divergences as a problem with natural language—a sign that natural
language should be "cleaned up" and improved so that science can have a firm foundation
2. Formalist position is logical rules can be applied to language and should be the ideal way.

B. Informalists think that language is important for many purposes beyond science and that
interpretation and logic need not conform to the severe standards that are insisted on by the
formalists.. Emotions ,context and background may ground certain statements in a way that it
naturally communicate a particular message. The logical rules are limited and do not capture the
emotions, the tones and background of the statements and the speaker or other meanings of
language.

Eg Mr. Whites says “ if you are born a Nigger then you are lucky”

This statement by looking at it from the back ground , a white guy saying niggers could be
interpreted as racist and an attempt to imply that blacks should be good subordinates or slaves and
should be happy with such position. But the formalist will only interpret this logically if you born a
nigger the you are good as If P then Q . Here the formalist emphasis on logical form of language
. Without adequately showing other contexts and emotions attached to statements and it ranges of
meaning. The logic applied then will mean all niggers are lucky. It objectively analyzed the language
without the subjectivities.

For Grice
Some conditions govern conversation and so it is a mistake to think natural language analysis is
different from logical language analysis. For language May have a straight forward interpretation and
implied interpretation. While individuals are cooperating in conversations when they make
statements they expect the listener to get the order implied meaning other than the straight
forward meaning of the words.

Criticism
Assumptions of a listener understanding what you are saying is not plausible as assumptions may
be false.

Frege sense and reference

Proves that when we say the meaning of a word is dependent on it reference we are wrong to
hold such position because in identity statements such as A=B, Atta is Mills, Kofi is the writer, etc
each of the words have the same referent but we notice a difference in meaning when we
substitute one for the other and their truth value also changes we we substitute one for the other.
If indeed the meaning is based on their reference then they should have similar meaning in all
circumstances.
Illustration.
Eg. Atta is Mills.
Both Attah and Mills refer to one person and if the meaning of a name is dependent on it
reference they must mean the same in all sentences
But composition changes when we replace Atta with Mills in the identity statement
1. “ Attah is Mills”

When we replace Attah with Mills we will have

2.Mills is Mills
But we realize that sentence 1 is informative and a posterior while sentence 2 is analytic and non
informative. So this proves that the names have different meaning even though they have similar
reference. The reason is that the name have it own sense and it is the sense that gives it meaning.

Wiredu Empiricalism
Concepts or ideas are not objects or entities , there is a difference between concepts and objects.
The mind is not an object containing our thoughts but the mind is rather the ideas and thoughts of
the body. In Akan there is no difference between ideas and mind. The word adwene means the
same for mind and ideas. Akan language have abstract content or ideas but it always connects
ideas with empirical sense. Akans do not objectify ideas(making an idea sound like an object). The
word kind or being kind in English has the abstract form kindness. Kindness sounds like something
on it own. It may sound like there is an object called kind but is just an idea about a behavior .
Similar English words like goodness, makes ideas sounds like an object.
. If ideas were objects we cannot understand the difference between objects If concepts(ideas)
were entities(objects) perception would be impossible between two objects. The focus of
empiricalism is to ensure that we do not admit any existents or categories of existents unless they
are supportable by empirical evidence or empirically based conceptual reflection” in other words our
ideas should be based on empirical facts and not on the notion that some things exist outside of the
empirical or totally disconnected from the empirical or senses and they are objects on their own in a
different realm. Empiricalism differ from empiricism for it do not see mind as an object at all.
Is goodness on it own without humans to show it. Good is just an idea. Time is just a measure of
event and so is space connected to places, both space and time are not intuitions of the mind but
empirically based. In short,The reification or objectification (turning ideas into independent objects)
of conceptual materials as independently existing entities commits a category mistake.

Imagine a conversation between between Plato and Wiredu

Plato: the reality is the Forms
Wiredu: what do you mean?
Plato: look there are individuals exhibiting beauty but true beauty exist in the Forms. all the girls
you see are just imitation of the actual thing called beauty.
Wiredu: no old man, beauty is just an idea about bodies, it is not an object.
Plato: look goodness for example is something that is ideal and exist in the Forms, humans only
exhibit it photocopies
Wiredu: Liar, Good is just an idea about how people behave. Good is not an object, you changed it to
goodness to make it sound like an object. You are turning an idea into an object and making it exist
in a transcendental form. You these Europeans must stop doing that.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Mind
Mind is not an object
The empiricist see mind as the receiver of ideas and different from the ideas it receives, this position
is wrong according to Wiredu for mind is not an object but concept.
Akan don’t even see mind as different from ideas. The word ‘adwene’ in Akan stands for thoughts
and mind as well and thus mind does not stand as separate object from the body. Therefore the
mind body problem does not arise in Akan conception of the human person. Wiredu presents two
related reductio ad absurdum arguments to show that concepts cannot be conceived as entities. In
the one argument, Wiredu reasons that if concepts are entities then perception would be
impossible. In other words if ideas are also objects, how would we have it in our mind.
Just like Frege has shown, words may have sense and not referent. Ideas exist without being an
object.
To conceive mind as an object is to commit category mistake. Mind is the function of thoughts.

If mind is not an entity, then the issue of whether minds exist independently of the body, and the
question of whether minds are spiritual or immaterial substances do not arise. Concepts belong to
the realm of the mental which can be understood to be aspects of brain states.