Graduate studies at Western
Ratio 18 (3):262-275 (2005)
|Abstract||In footnote 56 of his Naming and Necessity, Kripke offers a ‘proof’ of the essentiality of origin. On its most literal reading the argument is clearly ﬂawed, as was made clear by Nathan Salmon. Salmon attempts to save the literal reading of the argument, but I argue that the new argument is ﬂawed as well, and that it can’t be what Kripke intended. I offer an alternative reconstruction of Kripke’s argument, but I show that this suffers from a more subtle fault.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christopher Hughes (2004). Kripke: Names, Necessity, and Identity. Oxford University Press.
T. Robertson (1998). Possibilities and the Arguments for Origin Essentialism. Mind 107 (428):729-750.
Alan Berger (ed.) (2010). Saul Kripke. Cambridge University Press.
Olav Gjelsvik (1987). A Kripkean Objection to Kripke's Argument Against Identity-Theories. Inquiry 30 (4):435 – 450.
Marga Reimer (1997). Could There Have Been Unicorns? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 5 (1):35 – 51.
Steven R. Bayne (1988). Kripke's Cartesian Argument. Philosophia 18 (July):265-270.
Sonia Roca-Royes & Ross Cameron (2006). Rohrbaugh and deRosset on the Necessity of Origin. Mind 115 (458):361-366.
Roberta Ballarin (2013). The Necessity of Origin: A Long and Winding Route. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 78 (2):353-370.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads81 ( #11,725 of 739,350 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,124 of 739,350 )
How can I increase my downloads?