[hist-analytic] Kripke on the A priori and A posteriori

Baynesr at comcast.net Baynesr at comcast.net
Wed Nov 11 11:00:52 EST 2009



Ah, C'mon Roger! Read Kripke before critizing him. 

He's really a hell of a lot more fun than most of those 

other guys, even Carnap; and he has some really very 

compelling views. 



If you detach the association I made in my last posting 

with Evans, then I think most all of your criticisms are not 

criticisms of Kripke at all. They are far more general. 

But that "cool" with me, just so long as I can figure out 

from where you begin to where you are going. Not so 

sure. For example, what do you take a proposition to 

be? There is a lot of disgreement here. What you've 

said may apply to only a couple versions etc. 



Regards 



STeve 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Bishop Jones" <rbj at rbjones.com> 
To: hist-analytic at simplelists.com 
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:45:50 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: Kripke on the A priori and A posteriori 

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 
> conclusions 
> we can draw - that Kripke's notion of rigid designation is "relativized" to 
> an 
> 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. 

Roger Jones 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20091111/1c2bfe28/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the hist-analytic mailing list