The Significance Of White Horse Slaughter

In this paper, I will discuss whether the white horse paradox can be rationalized by the interpretations of a descriptional reference theory, an indexical language theory, and a direct reference theory. By criticizing Zhuangzi’s indexical language theory, I will conclude that the paradox is justified by a direct reference theory.

Gongsun Longzi argues that a white horse is not a horse in terms of their identity. A horse is an animal of shape, which is defined by specific physical characteristics. In contrast, a white horse is an animal of both shape and color, which is defined by both physical features and the color white. Since a horse and a white horse differ in the attribute of color, a white horse is not a horse. In order to further demonstrate the distinction between a horse and a white horse, suppose one wants a horse, in which case a horse of any possible color will suffice. However, if one wants a white horse, then it cannot be a horse of any random color but white. If a white horse and a horse are identical, then a horse will suffice both cases, which is a

The meaning of a name is the meaning of the definite descriptions associated, i.e., its sense, and the reference of a name is fixed by its descriptional property. In other words, reference is the object to which a name refers, and sense is the way a name designates the object. For example, if one asks whether water exists, and if water is understood as the substance that is drinkable, transparent, and liquid, one essentially asks whether an object that fits into such descriptions exists. Hence, white horse signifies an object with the attribute of white, while horse signifies an object with no specific color. If X is identical with Y, then X must have all the attributes that Y has, and vice versa. Therefore, horse and white horse must refer to distinct objects; i.e., a white horse is not a