DOCSLIB.ORG

Saul Kripke Pdf, Epub, Ebook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

SAUL KRIPKE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Alan Berger | 382 pages | 17 Aug 2011 | CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS | 9780521674980 | English | Cambridge, United Kingdom Saul Kripke PDF Book A: There are cases where it is better to divide. You must log in to post a comment. Retrieved Jump to: navigation , search. The Middle East The topic of our conversation changes somewhat. A former student wrote a novel where the main character seems to be modeled after Kripke. Kripke's main propositions in Naming and Necessity concerning proper names are that the meaning of a name simply is the object it refers to and that a name's referent is determined by a causal link between some sort of "baptism" and the utterance of the name. In contemporary discussion very few people, if any, distinguish between the concepts of statements being a priori and their being necessary. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions. But Kripke has also been criticized. Main article: Naming and Necessity. Marcus, however, has refused to publish the verbatim transcript of the lecture. Although Kripke himself drew no conclusion on this point, his discussion was widely interpreted as a serious challenge to attempts to explain meaning in purely naturalistic terms. Kripke is an observant Jew. Kripke's response to this difficulty was to eliminate terms. Finally, Kripke gave an argument against identity materialism in the philosophy of mind, the view that every mental fact is identical with some physical fact See talk. So, the link between the property of being a murderer and the person referred to is contingent. In Kripke began teaching at the CUNY Graduate Center in midtown Manhattan, and was appointed a distinguished professor of philosophy there in His second line of criticism states that even in those limited cases where the speaker does believe something uniquely specifying, what is uniquely specified turns out not to be the referent. Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date. October Influenced by. This cannot be explained by coreferring names having different semantic properties. It should be noted that Kripke himself expresses doubts in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as to whether Wittgenstein would endorse his interpretation of the Philosophical Investigations. Saul Kripke Writer He is always thinking and has just recently been visiting professor at Hebrew University in Israel. Phillips Alvin Plantinga A. After graduating from high school in , Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics. A: Perhaps it never was an unconditional search for truth. In this novel, The Mind-Body Problem, the main character has a problem with the relation between the abstract and concrete. Learn how your comment data is processed. In these lectures, I will argue, intuitively, that proper names are rigid designators, for although the man Nixon might not have been the President, it is not the case that he might not have been Nixon though he might not have been called 'Nixon'. This is because macroscopic objects consist of vast numbers of atoms and their individual random quantum events average out. Cambridge University Press. At 19 years old he published his first article in logic. The Frege-Russell theory was also a theory of reference, of denotation, of terms that "pick out" or identify an individual, whether a human being, an inanimate object, or a natural kind. Skip to content by Andreas Saugstad Saul Kripke is one of the greatest thinkers in modern philosophy. This is because the physical world contains the possibility that the carpenter could have chosen a different piece of wood, or the table could have been made of ice Kripke's cryptic alternative, p. History at your fingertips. He hopes to continue visiting Hebrew University in the future. They contain none of the likely accidental properties that accrue to persons during their lifetimes, such as "first president. Q: Is there a lot of racism in the Middle East? Thus the possible but not actual worlds are not phantom duplicates of the 'world' in this other sense. The motivation for the world-relative approach was to represent the possibility that objects in one world may fail to exist in another. Kripke claims both Plato and Aristotle did philosophy because of its intrinsic value. Be the first to write a review. It should be noted that Kripke himself expresses doubts in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as to whether Wittgenstein would endorse his interpretation of the Philosophical Investigations. In he graduated from Harvard with the only nonhonorary degree he ever received, a B. Princeton University Press. For example, Hesperus and Phosphorus are identical qua referents to the planet Venus Gottfried Leibniz 's famous law about the "identity of indiscernibles" can not be an absolute statement. But Lewis imagines that every single bit in the universe may be changed at any time, an order of physical infinities that rivals the greatest number that Georg Cantor ever imagined. The talk page may contain suggestions. Show More Show Less. Anscombe J. He was later hired by Princeton University. He is a pioneer in the logic of subjective sentences, the philosophy of language and the nature of being. One can refer to it, as we might say, directly. Reference and Identity Using the ancient example of "Hesperus is Phosphorus," the two ancient names for the planet Venus that appears as both the Evening star and the Morning star, Kripke claims that since the two names refer to the same thing, they are identical. Analysis paradox of analysis Analytic—synthetic distinction Counterfactual Natural kind Reflective equilibrium Supervenience. Kripke is an observant Jew. Kripke articulated this view using the formal apparatus of possible worlds. The Medieval philosophers were monks, but also professors. Kripke repudiated the Fregean idea that names introduce their referents…. Sign up here to see what happened On This Day , every day in your inbox! Archived from the original on But note that the rigidity of a proper name is only relative to its early date. The miniature worlds are tightly controlled, both as to the objects involved two dice , the relevant properties number on face shown , and thus the relevant idea of possibility. Kripke's other examples include: it is necessary that gold is necessarily a metal, that it is yellow, and has atomic number 79 p. All knowledge starts with the recording of experiences. Go Inside Magazine. Blackwell Publishing. The problems in Europe with foreign workers that meet prejudices are that they are not integrated. May I have your e-mail address? Saul Kripke Reviews In 'Lecture II', Kripke reconsiders the cluster theory of names and argues for his own position on the nature of reference, a position that contributed to the development of the causal theory of reference. Strawson R. They hope to show that the appearance of chance is the result of human ignorance, that chance is merely an epistemic phenomenon. All knowledge starts with the recording of experiences. Before Kripke gave his 'Naming and Necessity' lectures, a number of criticisms of this descriptivist theory had been published by leading philosophers, including Ludwig Wittgenstein , John Searle and Peter Strawson. As Kripke described it, "the 'counterfactual situation' could be thought of as a miniworld or a ministate, restricted to features of the world relevant to the problem at hand. Klein William R. Classical Mathematical Non-classical Philosophical. A name can have connotation but no denotation. Descartes was not a professor, but he did a lot of teaching. He called such directly referring proper names " rigid designators ". All general terms, on the other hand, are according to Mill connotative. They have recently been published by Oxford University Press. I guess the traditional characterization from Kant goes something like: a priori truths are those which can be known independently of any experience. Naming and Necessity in libraries WorldCat catalog. Austin A. Kripke argued that the only way to defend this identity is as an a posteriori necessary identity, but that such an identity—e. Kripke's book generated a large secondary literature, [ citation needed ] divided between those who find his skeptical problem interesting and perceptive, and others, such as Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker , who argue that his meaning skepticism is a pseudo-problem that stems from a confused, selective reading of Wittgenstein. We therefore do not believe this on the basis of pure a priori evidence. This cannot be explained by coreferring names having different semantic properties. All of Kripke's possible worlds are different ways our actual world might have been. Stabler, " "Kripke on functionalism and automata ", Synthese , Vol. All scientific knowledge is information shared among the minds of a community of inquirers. Learn More in these related Britannica articles:. Campus Affiliation: Graduate Center. The web service Alexandria is granted from Memodata for the Ebay search. In this novel, The Mind-Body Problem, the main character has a problem with the relation between the abstract and concrete. Crawl products or adds Get XML access to reach the best products. Second, when the referent of a name is determined by a property attributed to the thing named, the link is contingent, rather than necessary or essential. In other words, C is the largest class of frames such that L is sound wrt C. For many he is a living legend. This means that there are also no real possibilities in any of their possible worlds, only actualities there as well. Kastner Stuart Kauffman Martin J. Similar arguments have been proposed by David Chalmers. The Medieval philosophers were monks, but also professors. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words left, right, up, down from the falling squares.
Recommended publications
  • 5. Essence and Natural Kinds: When Science Meets Preschooler Intuition1 Sarah-Jane Leslie

    5. Essence and Natural Kinds: When Science Meets Preschooler Intuition1 Sarah-Jane Leslie

    978–0–19–954696–1 05-Gendler-Hawthorne-c05-drv Gendler (Typeset by SPi) 108 of 346 February 5, 2013 6:20 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST PROOF,5/2/2013, SPi 5. Essence and Natural Kinds: When Science Meets Preschooler Intuition1 Sarah-Jane Leslie INTRODUCTION It is common practice in philosophy to “rely on intuitions” in the course of an argument, or sometimes simply to establish a conclusion. One question that is therefore important to settle is: what is the source of these intuitions? Correspondingly: what is their epistemological status? Philosophical discus- sion often proceeds as though these intuitions stem from insight into the nature of things—as though they are born of rational reflection and judicious discernment. If these intuitions do not have some such status, then their role in philosophical theorizing rapidly becomes suspect. We would not, for example, wish to place philosophical weight on intuitions that are in effect the unreflective articulation of inchoate cognitive biases. Developmental psychology has discovered a range of belief sets that emerge in the first few years of life, and which plausibly go beyond the evidence to which the child has had access in that time period. In such cases, it is reasonable to suppose that the belief sets do not derive solely from the child’s rational reflection on her evidence, but rather show something about the way human beings are fundamentally disposed to see the world. (In some cases, the deep-seated dispositions are also shared with non-human animals.) There are many explanations of why we may be fundamentally disposed to see the world in a particular way, only one of which is that metaphysically or scientifically speaking, the world actually is that way.
  • Putnam's Theory of Natural Kinds and Their Names Is Not The

    Putnam's Theory of Natural Kinds and Their Names Is Not The

    PUTNAM’S THEORY OF NATURAL KINDS AND THEIR NAMES IS NOT THE SAME AS KRIPKE’S IAN HACKING Collège de France Abstract Philosophers have been referring to the “Kripke–Putnam” theory of natural- kind terms for over 30 years. Although there is one common starting point, the two philosophers began with different motivations and presuppositions, and developed in different ways. Putnam’s publications on the topic evolved over the decades, certainly clarifying and probably modifying his analysis, while Kripke published nothing after 1980. The result is two very different theories about natural kinds and their names. Both accept that the meaning of a natural- kind term is not given by a description or defining properties, but is specified by its referents. From then on, Putnam rejected even the label, causal theory of reference, preferring to say historical, or collective. He called his own approach indexical. His account of substance identity stops short a number of objections that were later raised, such as what is called the qua problem. He came to reject the thought that water is necessarily H2O, and to denounce the idea of metaphysical necessity that goes beyond physical necessity. Essences never had a role in his analysis; there is no sense in which he was an essentialist. He thought of hidden structures as the usual determinant of natural kinds, but always insisted that what counts as a natural kind is relative to interests. “Natural kind” itself is itself an importantly theoretical concept, he argued. The paper also notes that Putnam says a great deal about what natural kinds are, while Kripke did not.
  • CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy

    CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy

    CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy Sandra Laugier, Translated by Daniela Ginsberg, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013, pp. 168, £ 24.50. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-47054-2 (cloth). Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall Originally published in French in the year 2000, the English version of Sandra Laugier’s short book of 10 Chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion, has a 7 page Preface, 9 pages of Notes, a brief Bibliography and 121 pages of actual text. The reading of Wittgenstein and Austin that she provides is distinctly Cavellian in character. Indeed, Stanley Cavell in a dust-cover quote, remarks that her work is already influential in France and Italy, exciting as it does a new interest in ‘language conceived not only as a cognitive capacity but also as used, and meant, as part of our form of life’. Cavell goes on to say that this new translation is not merely welcome but indispensable, and has at least the capacity to alter prevailing views about the philosophy of language, so affecting what we have come to think of as the ‘analytic-continental divide’. Toril Moi of Duke Uni., in another dust-cover quote, states that Laugier’s reading of Wittgenstein-Austin-Cavell shows how their claim that ‘to speak about language is to speak about the world is an antimetaphysical revolution in philosophy that tranforms our understanding of epistemology and ethics.’ She concludes with the thought that anyone who wishes to understand what ‘ordinary language philosophy’ means today should read this book. This is a large claim to make, and anyone who is inclined to read Wittgenstein and Austin strictly in their own terms, and with their own avowed intentions - where discernible - steadily in view, is almost bound to conclude that it is simply not true.
  • The New Theory of Reference: Kripke, Marcus, and Its Origins

    The New Theory of Reference: Kripke, Marcus, and Its Origins

    THE NEW THEORY OF REFERENCE SYNTHESE LIBRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Managing Editor: JAAKKO HINTIKKA, Boston University Editors: DIRK V AN DALEN, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands DONALD DAVIDSON, University of California, Berkeley THEO A.F. KUIPERS, University ofGroningen, The Netherlands PATRICK SUPPES, Stanford University, California JAN WOLEN-SKI, Jagielionian University, KrakOw, Poland THE NEW THEORY OF REFERENCE: KRIPKE, MARCUS, AND ITS ORIGINS Edited by PAUL W. HUMPHREYS University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, U S.A. and JAMES H. FETZER University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN, US.A . ..... SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS" MEDIA, B.V. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available. ISBN 978-0-7923-5578-6 ISBN 978-94-011-5250-1 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-5250-1 Printed on acid-free paper AII Rights Reserved © 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1998 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1998 No part ofthis publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, inc1uding photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permis sion from the copyright owner. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAUL W. HUMPHREYS and JAMES H. FETZER / Introduction vii PART I: THE APA EXCHANGE 1. QUENTIN SMITH / Marcus, Kripke, and the Origin of the New Theory of Reference 3 2. SCOTT SOAMES / Revisionism about Reference: A Reply to Smith 13 3. QUENTIN SMITH / Marcus and the New Theory of Reference: A Reply to Scott Soames 37 PART II: REPLIES 4. SCOTT SOAMES / More Revisionism about Reference 65 5.
  • Concrete Possible Worlds (Final)

    Concrete Possible Worlds (Final)

    CONCRETE POSSIBLE WORLDS Phillip Bricker 1. INTRODUCTION. Open a book or article of contemporary analytic philosophy, and you are likely to find talk of possible worlds therein. This applies not only to analytic metaphysics, but to areas as diverse as philosophy of language, philosophy of science, epistemology, and ethics. Philosophers agree, for the most part, that possible worlds talk is extremely useful for explicating concepts and formulating theories. They disagree, however, over its proper interpretation. In this chapter, I discuss the view, championed by David Lewis, that philosophers’ talk of possible worlds is the literal truth.1 There exists a plurality of worlds. One of these is our world, the actual world, the physical universe that contains us and all our surroundings. The others are merely possible worlds containing merely possible beings, such as flying pigs and talking donkeys. But the other worlds are no less real or concrete for being merely possible. Fantastic? Yes! What could motivate a philosopher to believe such a tale? I start, as is customary, with modality.2 Truths about the world divide into two sorts: categorical and modal. Categorical truths describe how things are, what is actually the case. Modal truths describe how things could or must be, what is possibly or 1 The fullest statement of Lewis’s theory of possible worlds is contained in his magnum opus, Lewis (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds. Lewis’s view is sometimes called “modal realism.” 2 Historically, it was the attempt to provide semantics for modal logic that catapulted possible worlds to the forefront of analytic philosophy.
  • Kripke's Naming and Necessity: Lecture II

    Kripke's Naming and Necessity: Lecture II

    Kripke’s Naming and Necessity: Lecture II PHIL 83104 October 12, 2011 1. Varieties of descriptivism (end of Lecture I) ....................................................................1 2. Kripke’s arguments against descriptivism (71-90) ...........................................................2 2.1. The modal argument (48-49, 71-77) 2.1.1. Rigidified descriptions 2.1.2. Wide-scoping descriptions 2.2. The semantic argument (78-85) 2.3. The epistemic argument (86-87) 3. Kripke’s alternative picture of reference (91-97) ..............................................................5 4. Identity sentences and the necessary a posteriori (97-105) ..............................................7 4.1. The necessity of identity 4.2. A prioricity and qualitatively identical situations 4.3. Some sources of skepticism about Kripke’s claim 4.3.1. Contingent identities? 4.3.2. The illusion of contingency 4.3.3. Millianism about names 1. VARIETIES OF DESCRIPTIVISM (END OF LECTURE I) We’ve already seen two distinctions Kripke makes between different versions of descriptivism: • The distinction between descriptivist views which let a single description do the work, and those which rely on a cluster of descriptions • The distinctiopn between views according to which a description gives the meaning of a name, and those according to which it merely fixes the reference of the name Here Kripke introduces a third distinction: between circular and non-circular descriptivist views. This distinction is not like the others; it is less a distinction between varieties of descriptivism than a constraint on descriptivist views. What exactly is this constraint? Suppose we identified the meaning of the name “Aristotle” with the meaning of the description “the person called ‘Aristotle’” or “the referent of ‘Aristotle.’” These would be examples of descriptivist views which fail to meet the non-circularity condition, since to determine what object satisfies the description, we must first know which object is the referent of the name in question.
  • David Lewis's Place in Analytic Philosophy Scott Soames by The

    David Lewis's Place in Analytic Philosophy Scott Soames by The

    David Lewis’s Place in Analytic Philosophy Scott Soames By the early 1970s, and continuing through 2001, David Lewis and Saul Kripke had taken over W.V.O. Quine’s leadership in metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophical logic in the English-speaking world. Quine, in turn, had inherited his position in the early 1950s from Rudolf Carnap, who had been the leading logical positivist -- first in Europe, and, after 1935, in America. A renegade positivist himself, Quine eschewed apriority, necessity, and analyticity, while (for a time) adopting a holistic version of verificationism. Like Carnap, he placed philosophical logic and the philosophy of science at the center of philosophy. While not entirely avoiding metaphysics and epistemology, he tried to “naturalize” both. By contrast, Lewis and Kripke embraced the modalities Quine rejected.1 They also had no sympathy for his early verificationism, or his twin flights from intension and intention. As for philosophy of science, it was transforming itself into specialized philosophies of the several sciences, and did not lend itself to unified treatment. Although Lewis had deep interests in scientific issues, and was commendably realist about science in general, science itself was not the center of own distinctive approach to philosophy. Despite similarities in their opposition to Quine, the differences between Lewis and Kripke were large – especially in the semantics and metaphysics of modality. They also had different philosophical styles. Whereas Lewis was a wide-ranging thinker who pieced together a systematic philosophical world view, Kripke gave little thought to system, focusing instead on a few central topics. There is, therefore, no conflict between the two on many of the issues on which Kripke was silent.
  • Anarchism and Analytic Philosophy

    Anarchism and Analytic Philosophy

    CHAPTER 12 Anarchism and Analytic Philosophy Paul McLaughlin The Problem In order to discuss the relationship between “anarchism” and “analytic phi­ losophy,” I open with a statement of what I take these concepts to mean— or, rather, what I take the associated phenomena to be. Put bluntly, I take both phenomena to be both real and ideal. Thus, anarchism as such can be un­ derstood as both political movement (henceforth “Anarchism”) and political theory (henceforth “anarchism”). Similarly, analytic philosophy as such can be understood as both intellectual tradition (henceforth “Analytic Philosophy,” or “AP” for short) and theoretical procedure (henceforth “analytic philosophy” or “ap” for short). Interesting questions can be asked about the relationship be­ tween Anarchism and anarchism.1 However, in this chapter I have nothing to say about Anarchism: doing so would contribute little (if anything) to our un­ derstanding of the relationship between anarchism as such and analytic phi­ losophy as such. As for the relationship between AP and ap, this will be taken up below, since it informs our understanding of the relationship between an­ archism and analytic philosophy as such. In this chapter, in other words, I discuss the relationship between anar­ chism (a specific political theory) and both AP (a specific intellectual tradi­ tion) and ap (a specific theoretical procedure). There is little to be said about the relationship between either AP or ap and Anarchism (a specific political movement) so this political movement is left out of the subsequent account. But what I hope to demonstrate with respect to the relationship between an­ archism and AP is that such a relationship exists, however limited, and that it may be of some interest from a strictly historical point of view.
  • 38 Saul Kripke (1940– )

    38 Saul Kripke (1940– )

    38 Saul Kripke (1940– ) DAVID SOSA Life Kripke once said, “People used to talk about concepts more, and now they talk about words more. Sometimes I think it’s better to talk about concepts.” In fact, Kripke himself has said important things, and developed and deployed significant conceptual resources, about both words and concepts. Saul Aaron Kripke was born in Bay Shore, New York. His mother Dorothy was a teacher and father Myer a rabbi. The family soon moved to Omaha, Nebraska where Kripke spent most of his childhood. He was a child prodigy, learning Hebrew on his own at the age of 6 and reading all of Shakespeare in the fourth grade. But it was in math- ematics that he exhibited the greatest precocity: he derived results in algebra – intui- tively, without the benefit of algebraic notation – in fourth grade and taught himself geometry and calculus by the end of elementary school. By the time he was in high school, Kripke’s work in mathematical logic was so advanced that he presented some of it at a professional mathematics conference. Around the time he published his first article, “A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic,” Kripke was on his way to Harvard, from which he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics in 1962. But during his years at Harvard, Kripke’s interests already began to shift to philosophy. In 1963 Kripke was appointed to the Harvard Society of Fellows and later to posi- tions as lecturer at Princeton University (1965, 1966) and back at Harvard (1966–8). Finally, he was appointed Associate Professor at Rockefeller University in 1968 and pro- moted to Professor in 1972.
  • Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory

    Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory

    1 To appear in Romina Padró and Yale Weiss (eds.), Saul Kripke on Modal Logic. New York: Springer. Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory Timothy Williamson Abstract: 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. Consideration is given to 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 the 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. Keywords: Modal logic, intuitionistic logic, alternative logics, Kripke, Quine, Dummett, Putnam Author affiliation: Oxford University, U.K. Email: [email protected] 2 1. Introduction I first encountered Saul Kripke in my first term as an undergraduate at Oxford University, studying mathematics and philosophy, when he gave the 1973 John Locke Lectures (later published as Kripke 2013).
  • An Interview with Donald Davidson

    An Interview with Donald Davidson

    An interview with Donald Davidson Donald Davidson is an analytic philosopher in the tradition of Wittgenstein and Quine, and his formulations of action, truth and communicative interaction have generated considerable debate in philosophical circles around the world. The following "interview" actually took place over two continents and several years. It's merely a part of what must now be literally hundreds of hours of taped conversations between Professor Davidson and myself. I hope that what follows will give you a flavor of Donald Davidson, the person, as well as the philosopher. I begin with some of the first tapes he and I made, beginning in Venice, spring of 1988, continuing in San Marino, in spring of 1990, and in St Louis, in winter of 1991, concerning his induction into academia. With some insight into how Professor Davidson came to the profession, a reader might look anew at some of his philosophical writings; as well as get a sense of how the careerism unfortunately so integral to academic life today was so alien to the generation of philosophers Davidson is a member of. The very last part of this interview is from more recent tapes and represents Professor Davidson's effort to try to make his philosophical ideas available to a more general audience. Lepore: Tell me a bit about the early days. Davidson: I was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on March 6, 1917 to Clarence ("Davie") Herbert Davidson and Grace Cordelia Anthony. My mother's father's name was "Anthony" but her mother had married twice and by coincidence both her husbands were named "Anthony".
  • “Private Language Argument” According to Kripke

    “Private Language Argument” According to Kripke

    Wittgenstein according to Kripke 1 WITTGENSTEIN´S “PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT” ACCORDING TO KRIPKE Bachelor Degree Project in Philosophy 15 ECTS Spring Term 2012 Kenny Nilsson Supervisor: Oskar Macgregor Examiner: Paavo Pylkkänen Wittgenstein according to Kripke 2 Title: Wittgenstein´s “private language argument” according to Kripke Submitted by Kenny Nilsson to the University of Skövde as a final year project towards the degree of B.Sc. in the School of Humanities and Informatics. The project has been supervised by Oskar Macgregor. Date: 2012-06-18 I hereby certify that all material in this final year project which is not my own work has been identified and that no work is included for which a degree has already been conferred on me. Signature: ___________________________________________ Wittgenstein according to Kripke 3 Abstract Wittgenstein was a very important philosopher of the early twentieth century. One of his most important points was that which has been known as the Private Language Argument. This argument was given a new interpretation by Saul Kripke in 1982, which stirred up much debate. This essay investigates Kripke´s so called “skeptical challenge” and his “skeptical solution” to that challenge. To further enlighten the subject this essay also discusses a critique to Kripke´s interpretation, provided by the main critics, Baker and Hacker (1984). The conclusion of the essay is that Kripke´s theory takes up some interesting and important issues, although there are some serious flaws in Kripke´s solution that needs to be addressed if the solution is to be taken seriously. Keywords: Wittgenstein, private language, Kripke, language games RUNNING HEAD: Wittgenstein according to Kripke Wittgenstein according to Kripke 4 Table of contents Abstract 3 1.