John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

“Logic comprises the science of reasoning, as well as an art, founded in that science.” –System of Logic

System of Logic is concerned with the right method of thinking for constructing a ‘science of human nature’ that would include psychology, sociology, and economics.

System of LogicFirst part: devoted to explaining why an

analysis of language should precede the rest of Mill’s enquiries

Second part: ‘Of Names,’ Mill used the word ‘name’ broadly; all words are either names or parts of names

He made a distinction between categorematic words(words or phrases that are meaningful when they stand alone) and syncategorematic words (words or phrases that convey no meaning until they are joined with other words or phrases

Questions

How exactly should we understand the idea of something that has meaning when it stands alone?

What exactly belongs in Mill’s category of ‘name?’

Hasn’t this distinction been overtaken by work in compositional semantics? (Chap.3 and Chap.5)

Mill’s Aim

To establish a classification of names (three principal divisions)

To make a distinction between things and attributes of things—a distinction that can be understood by reference to simple subject-predicate sentences)

Why is this of interest to us?

First, when we know what different kinds of names there are, we can go on to say something about the different kinds of things there are;

Second, the difference between names of different sorts correspond to differences in the workings of different sorts of words

It can be instructive to think about individual words and the various ways in which they behave, or have meaning

J.S. Mill ‘Of Names’ (extracts from System of Logic, Book 1, Ch.2)Focus:1. Mill’s treatment of general

names, which contrasts with Locke’s treatment of them;

2. Mill’s treatment of proper names, which contrasts with Frege’s.

How did Mill characterize the three principal divisions among names?

I. Singular or general1. Singular- capable of being truly

affirmed of one thing (e.g. Fr. Joel Tabora, the little girl)

2. General- capable of being truly affirmed of an indefinite number of things (e.g. Man, dog)

1. General vs. Collective- general name is one which can be predicated of each individual of a multitude; collective name cannot be predicated of each separately but only of all taken together (e.g. The 76th Reginment)

II. Concrete or abstract1. Concrete- a name which stand for a thing

(e.g. white, man, old)2. Abstract- a name which stands for an

attribute of a thing (e.g. whiteness, humanity, old age)

1. Abstract-general- names not of one single and definite attribute, but of a class of attributes (e.g. colour is a name common to whiteness, redness, etc.)

2. Abstract-’neither general nor singular’- when only one attribute, neiither variable in degree nor in kind, is designated by the name (e.g. visibleness; tangibleness; equality- for although it denotes an attribute of many different objects, the attribute itself is always conceived as one, not many

III. Connotative or non-connotative1. connotative- a name which denotes a subject, and implies an attribute (e.g. white, long, virtuous)

2. non-connotative- a name which signifies a subject only,(e.g. Philippines, Duterte), or an attribute only (e.g. whiteness, length, virtue)

All concrete general names are connotative.

“Man”

Connotative- denotes Renato, Aella, Andrew and an indefinite number of other individuals, of whom, taken as a class, it is the name. It is applied to them because they possess certain attributes (corporeity, animal life, rationality, and a certain external form, which for distinction we call the human).

Concrete- a name which stand for a thing

General- capable of being truly affirmed of an indefinite number of things

Abstract names may also be connotative.Attributes themselves may have attributes

ascribed to them; and a word which denotes attributes may connote an attribute of those attributes (e.g. fault; equivalent to bad or hurtful quality. This word is a name common to many attributes.)

Proper names are not connotative.E.g. “John Stuart Mill”

-these names denote the individuals who are called by them but they do not indicate or imply any attributes as belonging to those individuals

- these are simply “marks”

- Attached to the objects themselves and are not independent on the continuance of any attribute of the object

- ‘unmeaning’

On Proper NamesMany things may have the same proper

names but depending on a context it stands for just one thing

When a proper name is given to a thing, it is not because of any of its attributes but because it was just a ‘given name’:“Proper names are without signification.”“Proper names are unmeaning marks.”

Locke Mill

“abstract” is used for general signs

“abstract” a name which stands for an attribute of a thing

Purpose of general signs is convenience (it will be inconvenient to give a different name to every single object)

The purpose of general signs is to classify names for better understanding and communication.

The difference between a particular sign and a general sign is the difference between the ideas of two sorts

The difference between singular and general names is between what they denote.

Strengths of Mill

Deeper understanding of things (of course dogs are not abstract things; and this is further supported when one is able to know what the name denotes through the distinction of general names and abstracts names)

2 Advantages of Mill’s General Names:1. It enables a distinction between a name denoting an

attribute possessed by singular things and a name denoting an attribute possessed by a multitude of things.

2. It allows us to assert general propositions: speakers may want to say something about more than one object (vs. Locke: general terms are only used to avoid the inconvenience of giving a separate name to each object)

Weaknesses of Mill

Mill speaks of the ‘principal use’ of a general name as its use ‘in predication’, but it seems that we need to understand how a name which is employed simply in predicating an attribute (dog in “Fido is a dog.”) can also occur in “All dogs are four-legged.

How should we understand a general term when it is combined with a varietyof other terms?

Mill’s general words opens up 2 dimensions of meaning (Locke only 1):1. general words means it denotes an attribute (e.g. ‘dog ‘denotes or is truly attributable to, all and only the things that are dogs.2. but, it so attributable in virtue of an attribute of those things; it connotes that attribute: (e.g.it indirectly signifies the attribute of doghood)

Summary

What is the signification of a name/word?

Crediting a word with a connotation is the only way, besides attributing a denotation to the word, of registering the word’s significance.

Therefore, Mill argues, since proper names do not indirectly signify any attribute, they are ‘not affirmed in any sense at all’, are ‘without signification’, are ‘unmeaning.’