Phrases like “the objective world” are typically taken to have meanings, where the meaning is as a kind of thing/entity that has properties, such as being physical. It would certainly be nonstandard to say that this isn’t a reference, as it is, literally, a noun phrase, that is taken to correspond with some entity having properties.
I agree that “un-referenceable entities” could be a reference to a class (like an adjective) rather than a particular. However if I say “there exists an un-referenceable entity, which has properties x, y, and z” then that really looks like a reference to a particular.
I also think my arguments about referenceability of particulars also apply to referenceability of classes. For a reference to a class to be meaningful to some agent, it must in some way be related to that agent, e.g. to their observations/actions.
I’m going to ignore criticism of the last paragraph since it’s not written to be compelling to people who don’t, by that point, agree with the post’s basic idea (which it seems you don’t).
“However if I say “there exists an un-referenceable entity, which has properties x, y, and z” then that really looks like a reference to a particular”—It’s a class that may only contain one if we choose the properties correctly
Phrases like “the objective world” are typically taken to have meanings, where the meaning is as a kind of thing/entity that has properties, such as being physical. It would certainly be nonstandard to say that this isn’t a reference, as it is, literally, a noun phrase, that is taken to correspond with some entity having properties.
I agree that “un-referenceable entities” could be a reference to a class (like an adjective) rather than a particular. However if I say “there exists an un-referenceable entity, which has properties x, y, and z” then that really looks like a reference to a particular.
I also think my arguments about referenceability of particulars also apply to referenceability of classes. For a reference to a class to be meaningful to some agent, it must in some way be related to that agent, e.g. to their observations/actions.
I’m going to ignore criticism of the last paragraph since it’s not written to be compelling to people who don’t, by that point, agree with the post’s basic idea (which it seems you don’t).
“However if I say “there exists an un-referenceable entity, which has properties x, y, and z” then that really looks like a reference to a particular”—It’s a class that may only contain one if we choose the properties correctly
I find that pretty vague. It doesn’t have much meaning for this agent.
Then don’t. Or..why should that be a problem? Even Kant doesn’t make positive claims about noumena or things in themselves.