[hist-analytic] Kripke on the A priori and A posteriori
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj at rbjones.com
Wed Nov 11 09:45:50 EST 2009
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 12:21:07 Baynesr at comcast.net wrote:
> There are two things Kripke might say. The first thing he would say is that
> you are attributing views to him he doesn't hold, and that you need to be
> more specific as to where he has said what you think he believes, otherwise
> we fall into impressionism.
I hope it he did say that he would also be specific about which attribution he
was contesting. and I hope I may be excused in this context from supplying
details until challenged, specifically!
I have read very little of Kripke and have no intention of reading any more
than necessary, so I posted on this topic risking criticism on my
understanding of Kripke (aiming primarily to defend Carnap against the
possibility that Kripke might have refuted him).
> Evans claims - and I think he is right, although I'm not sure of what
> we can draw - that Kripke's notion of rigid designation is "relativized" to
> individual, whereas on Evans's view it is not; that is, it is tied to a
> public language.
I can't see how that bears upon the arguments i presented.
I might add, that my arguments against Kripke are independent of whether there
are rigid designators, and even of what expressions are rigid designators.
More information about the hist-analytic