Abstract
The Kripkean metaphysical modality (i.e. possibility and necessity) is one of the most important concepts in contemporary analytic philosophy and is the basis of many metaphysical speculations. These metaphysical speculations frequently commit to entities that do not belong to this physical universe, such as merely possible entities, abstract entities, mental entities or qualities not realizable by the physical, which seems to contradict naturalism or physicalism. This paper proposes a naturalistic interpretation of the Kripkean modality, as a naturalist’s response to these metaphysical speculations. It will show that naturalism can accommodate the Kripkean metaphysical modality. In particular, it will show that naturalism can help to resolve the puzzles surrounding Kripke’s a posteriori necessary propositions and a priori contingent propositions.
摘要
克里普克的形而上学模态性(即可能性与必然性)概念是当代分析哲学中最重要的概念之一, 也是分析哲学中的许多形而上学思辨的基础。 这些形而上学思辨常常设置一些不属于这个物质世界的实体, 比如仅仅是可能的实体、 抽象实体、 不由物质实现的心灵实体或属性等, 它们似乎与自然主义或物理主义(即唯物主义)相矛盾。 在自然主义框架下, 可以对克里普克模态性提出一种解释, 作为自然主义者对这些形而上学思辨的回应。 这将证明, 自然主义可以容纳克里普克的形而上学模态性。 特别地, 这将说明, 自然主义能够帮助澄清围绕克里普克的后天必然命题与先天偶然命题的谜团。
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, F. (2003). “Thoughts and their contents: naturalized semantics”. In: S. Stich & F. Wafield eds. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Chalmers, D. (2002). “The components of content”. In: Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Also available from http://consc.net/papers.html
Chalmers, D. (2005). “The two-dimensional argument against materialism”. In: B. McLaughlin ed. Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Also available from http://consc.net/papers.html
Fodor, J. (1990). “A theory of content and other essays”. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Garcia-Carpintero, M. and J. Macia (2006). Two-Dimensional Semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press
Papineau, D. (1993). Philosophical Naturalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Soames, S. (2005). “Kripke on epistemic and metaphysical possibility: Two routes to the necessary aposteriori”. In: A. Berger ed. Saul Kripke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~soames/forthcoming_papers/
Soames, S. (2006). “The philosophical significance of the Kripkean necessary a posteriori”. Philosophical Issues 16: 288–309
Ye Feng (2007a). “A structural theory of content naturalization”. http://sites.google.com/site/fengye63/
Ye Feng (2007b). “On some puzzles about concepts”. http://sites.google.com/site/fengye63/
Ye Feng (2007c). “Truth and serving the biological purpose”. http://sites.google.com/site/fengve63/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
__________
Translated from Zhexue yanjiu 哲学研究 (Philosophical Researches), 2008, (1): 18–26
About this article
Cite this article
Ye, F. A naturalistic interpretation of the Kripkean modality. Front. Philos. China 4, 454–470 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-009-0029-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-009-0029-y