To describe an object's properties

To express the speaker's attitude towards an object

To refer to an object directly

To convey information about an object's location

A rigid designator refers to an object across possible worlds, while a non-rigid designator refers to an object only in the actual world.

A rigid designator refers to an object that exists, while a non-rigid designator refers to an object that does not exist.

A rigid designator refers to an object that is unique, while a non-rigid designator refers to an object that is not unique.

A rigid designator refers to an object that is concrete, while a non-rigid designator refers to an object that is abstract.

It shows that the descriptivist theory cannot account for the fact that names can refer to objects that do not exist.

It shows that the descriptivist theory cannot account for the fact that names can refer to objects that have multiple descriptions.

It shows that the descriptivist theory cannot account for the fact that names can refer to objects that are not unique.

It shows that the descriptivist theory cannot account for the fact that names can refer to objects that are abstract.

The theory that the meaning of a name is determined by the causal chain between the name and the object it refers to.

The theory that the meaning of a name is determined by the speaker's intention to refer to a particular object.

The theory that the meaning of a name is determined by the social convention that associates the name with a particular object.

The theory that the meaning of a name is determined by the object's properties.

It allows us to distinguish between statements that are true about an object in itself and statements that are true about the way we talk about an object.

It allows us to distinguish between statements that are true in all possible worlds and statements that are true only in some possible worlds.

It allows us to distinguish between statements that are true about the past and statements that are true about the future.

It allows us to distinguish between statements that are true about concrete objects and statements that are true about abstract objects.

The puzzle that arises from the fact that some statements that are necessarily true are also contingent.

The puzzle that arises from the fact that some statements that are contingent are also necessarily true.

The puzzle that arises from the fact that some statements that are true are also false.

The puzzle that arises from the fact that some statements that are false are also true.

He argues that there are no necessary a priori truths.

He argues that there are no contingent a priori truths.

He argues that necessary a priori truths are not really necessary.

He argues that contingent a priori truths are not really contingent.

It challenges the traditional view that the meaning of a proper name is determined by its description.

It shows that proper names can refer to objects that do not exist.

It shows that proper names can refer to objects that have multiple descriptions.

All of the above.

It challenges the traditional view that the meaning of a natural kind term is determined by its essential properties.

It shows that natural kind terms can refer to objects that do not have any essential properties.

It shows that natural kind terms can refer to objects that have multiple essential properties.

All of the above.

It shows that skepticism is a valid philosophical position.

It shows that skepticism is not a valid philosophical position.

It shows that skepticism is a valid philosophical position, but only for certain kinds of knowledge.

It shows that skepticism is not a valid philosophical position, but only for certain kinds of knowledge.

It shows that Wittgenstein's philosophy of language is correct.

It shows that Wittgenstein's philosophy of language is incorrect.

It shows that Wittgenstein's philosophy of language is correct in some ways and incorrect in other ways.

It shows that Wittgenstein's philosophy of language is irrelevant to the philosophy of language.

It shows that modal logic is a valid tool for analyzing the meaning of sentences.

It shows that modal logic is not a valid tool for analyzing the meaning of sentences.

It shows that modal logic is a valid tool for analyzing the meaning of some sentences, but not others.

It shows that modal logic is not a valid tool for analyzing the meaning of any sentences.

It shows that the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language are closely connected.

It shows that the philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language are not closely connected.

It shows that the philosophy of mind is more important than the philosophy of language.

It shows that the philosophy of language is more important than the philosophy of mind.

It shows that the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of language are closely connected.

It shows that the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of language are not closely connected.

It shows that the philosophy of mathematics is more important than the philosophy of language.

It shows that the philosophy of language is more important than the philosophy of mathematics.