Saul Kripke

In the context of Kripke's puzzle, Paderewski-the-pianist and Paderewski-the-politician are the same object but belong to two different semiotic systems. Their respective tokenings in thought or language are based on two informational contents which are caused by the same object but emitted through two distinct causal pathways. Relativization of the object to the two semiotic systems represent elements of a set of ___coreferential homonyms___. Every F is an F = Everything X that is conspicuously or demonstratively an F is something (...) XX which is systematically or descriptively an F. Although bearing distinct meanings, X is the same as XX. (shrink)

It is widely held that metaphysical modality is the broadest non-epistemic, alethic modality, and that /a posteriori/ modal essentialist truths, like that gold has atomic number 79, enjoy the necessity of the broadest alethic modality. One prominent argument for these conclusions--given by Cian Dorr, John Hawthorne, and Juhani Yli-Vakkuri--rests upon an extremely dubious premise: that certain pairs of properties—e.g., being gold and being made of atoms containing 79 protons—are one and the very same property. The two properties are seen to (...) be distinct on independent philosophical grounds. Metaphysical modality is in fact a restricted alethic modality. In particular, mathematical modality is broader than metaphysical modality. Arguably, the broadest alethic modality is logical modality, which is distinct from metaphysical modality. Even if it is metaphysically necessary that gold have atomic number 79, there is no logical/analytical inconsistency in the supposition that it does not. (shrink)

In his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke famously raised two sorts of problems for responses to the meaning skeptic that appealed to how we were disposed to use our words in the past. The first related to the fact that our “dispositions extend to only finitely many cases” while the second related to the fact that most of us have “dispositions to make mistakes.” The second of these problems has produced an enormous, and still growing, literature on (...) the purported ‘normativity’ of meaning, but the first has received (at least comparatively) little attention. It will be argued here, however, that (1) the fact that we can be disposed to make mistakes doesn’t present a serious problem for many disposition-based responses to the skeptic, and (2) considerations of the ‘finiteness’ of our dispositions point, on their own, to an important way that the relation between meaning and use must be understood as ‘normative’. In particular, the assumption that words have determinate meanings, more so than the assumption that they have ‘correctness’ conditions, rules out the possibility of understanding the relation between meaning and use in the more descriptive fashion commonly associated with dispositionalism. Nevertheless, if the relation of meaning and use is understood in a more normative key, responding to the meaning-skeptic with facts about one’s dispositions will turn out to be perfectly legitimate, though it will prevent one from being the sort of ‘dispositionalist’ that Kripke gives, without any real argument, a monopoly on disposition-based responses. (shrink)

The following is a typeset copy of a letter sent by Saul Kripke to David Lewis on August 11, 1969 regarding the article “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic” (Lewis, 1968). The original letter was typeset by Mimi Foster (indicated by the initials “mf” at the end of the letter) at Rockefeller University. In consultation with Saul Kripke, we corrected some typos, filled in blank formulas, and added three footnotes. Keywords have been added before the letter, references have been added (...) after the letter, and the original pagination of the letter is reflected in bracketed parentheticals. (The Editors.). (shrink)

This paper is an amended version of a talk Saul Kripke gave at the Eastern Division meeting of the APA in 1992 (an extended abstract was previously published as Kripke, 1992). It contains philosophical reflections and technical results concerning “Carnapian” quantified modal logic, that is, modal logic with quantification over individual concepts. The paper contains the fullest statement by the author available of (un)axiomatizability results he obtained in the 1970s. (The Editors.).

This edited volume brings together papers by both eminent and rising scholars to celebrate Saul Kripke’s singular contributions to modal logic. Kripke’s work on modal logic helped usher in a new semantic epoch for the field and made facility with modal logic indispensable not only to technically oriented philosophers but to theoretical computer scientists and others as well. This volume features previously unpublished work of Kripke’s as well as a brief intellectual biography recounting the story of how Kripke became interested (...) in, and made his first contributions to, modal logic. However, the majority of the volume’s contributions are forward-looking, and produce new philosophical and technical insights by engaging with ideas tracing back to Kripke. (shrink)

In this short intellectual biography, we chronicle Saul Kripke’s involvement in the development of modal logic, focusing on the decade beginning in 1953 and ending in 1963, during which time he ranged in age from 12 to 23. We also describe the state of modal logic before Kripke, Kripke’s correspondence with other modal logicians, and Kripke’s early influential publications on the semantics of modal logic as well as several later and lesser known contributions.

This chapter responds to Saul Kripke’s critique of the idea of adopting an alternative logic. It defends an anti-exceptionalist view of logic, on which coming to accept a new logic is a special case of coming to accept a new scientific theory. The approach is illustrated in detail by debates on quantified modal logic. A distinction between folk logic and scientific logic is modelled on the distinction between folk physics and scientific physics. The importance of not confusing logic with metalogic (...) in applying this distinction is emphasized. Defeasible inferential dispositions are shown to play a major role in theory acceptance in logic and mathematics as well as in natural and social science. Like beliefs, such dispositions are malleable in response to evidence, though not simply at will. The chapter considers the Quinean objection that accepting an alternative logic involves changing the subject rather than denying the doctrine. The objection is shown to depend on neglect of the social dimension of meaning determination, akin to descriptivism about proper names and natural kind terms criticized by Kripke and Putnam. Normal standards of interpretation indicate that disputes between classical and non-classical logicians are genuine disagreements. (shrink)

In an influential passage of Naming and Necessity Kripke argues, with the help of a fictional dialogue, that de re metaphysical modal distinctions have intuitive content. In this note I clarify the workings of the argument, and what it does and does not support. I conclude that Kripke’s argument does not, despite possible appearances, support the view that metaphysical modal distinctions are made in common sense discourse. The argument does however support the view that if metaphysical modal distinctions make sense (...) at the level of statements or states of affairs, then they also make sense de re. (shrink)

This article is devoted to thirtieth anniversary of the first publication in 1982 Saul Kripke's book "Wittgenstein on rules and private language". Radical skeptical interpretation of the work 'late' Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed by Saul Kripke in this book is considered one of the most famous "puzzle" of modern philosophy of language, which has become a source of much debate and discussion on the nature of the linguistic sign and its meaning. This article examines some of the consequences of a radical (...) version of skeptical 'rule-following' paradox by Saul Kripke, which remain in force and effect for finite functions and limited linguistic registers 'Ad finitum'. Thereby questioned the widely held view among analytic philosophers that the skeptical core for Saul Kripke's 'rule-following' paradox is argument 'Ad infinitum' (an inherent source of skepticism for our intention to follow the rule is concluded in itself situation of mastering for us endless function on the limited set of examples), and thus any direct or even moderate solutions of this paradox would be focused to its elimination. Thus proved that including for the field of finite functions and languages described theirs the skeptical force of 'rule-following' paradox itself completely saves. Moreover, undertaken in this article analysis detects a very quaint phenomenon to the field of language registers 'Ad finitum' - the effect of 'replication' (in the using of a linguistic phrase is always a n-th set of empirically equivalent but logically incompatible and even non-identical languages which it belongs). Study of the phenomenon of replication leads to a number of important remarks on many critics of Saul Kripke's skeptical paradox, in particular the famous Oxford philosopher Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker. Thus the concept of 'community speakers' has been called by Saul Kripke for skeptical solution to paradox of him own cannot be eliminated by the concept of 'share' and 'shareable' languages proposed for this aim by Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker. Despite the criticism the skeptical paradox 'rule-following' by Saul Kripke is still the center of attention and remains influential in modern philosophy of language and the meaning theory. (shrink)

This chapter examines modality in the history of analytic philosophy. There were, in this history, two principal types of reductionism or eliminativism about modality, and two corresponding phases in the rejection of anti-modal stances. First, the founders of analytic philosophy, Frege, Moore, and Russell, took necessity and possibility to be reducible to more fundamental logical notions, where logic for these thinkers consists of truths about a mind- and language-independent reality extending beyond the empirical world. Against this reductionism, C. I. Lewis (...) and Wittgenstein argued that logic itself requires modal notions. Second, Carnap advanced a pragmatically motivated account of modal terms as expressing pseudo-object properties, which appear to be properties of objects but can be construed as properties of their designations. Quine criticized this account and proposed a thoroughgoing elimination of modality. Quine’s well-known claim that quantifying into modal contexts is unintelligible without resorting to essentialism cannot be fully understood independently of Carnap’s notion of pseudo-object property. Against Quine, Ruth Marcus and Saul Kripke argued for the coherence of modal concepts and their entrenchment in ordinary language and thought, leading to the now dominant view that modal properties are mind- and language-independent features of the world. (shrink)

This paper distinguishes two varieties of skepticism and the varieties of philosophical response those skepticisms have engendered. The aim of the exercise is to furnish a perspicuous overview of some of the dialectical relations that obtain across some of the range of problems that philosophers have called (and continue to call) “skeptical”. I argue that such an overview affords a number of forms of philosophical insight.

I survey some important semantical and axiomatic theories of self-referential truth. Kripke's fixed-point theory, the revision theory of truth and appraoches involving fuzzy logic are the main examples of semantical theories. I look at axiomatic theories devised by Cantini, Feferman, Freidman and Sheard. Finally some applications of the theory of self-referential truth are considered.