Graduate studies at Western
In Alan Berger (ed.), Saul Kripke. Cambridge University Press (2011)
|Abstract||Saul Kripke’s discussion of the necessary aposteriori in Naming and Necessity and “Identity and Necessity” -- in which he lays the foundation for distinguishing epistemic from metaphysical possibility, and explaining the relationship between the two – is, in my opinion, one of the outstanding achievements of twentieth century philosophy.1 My aim in this essay is to extract the enduring lessons of his discussion, and disentangle them from certain difficulties which, alas, can also be found there. I will argue that there are, in fact, two Kripkean routes to the necessary aposteriori – one correct and philosophically far-reaching, the other incorrect and philosophically misleading.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
M. J. Garcia-Encinas (2012). On Categories and A Posteriori Necessity: A Phenomenological Echo. Metaphilosophy 43 (1-2):147-164.
Dorothy Edgington (2004). Two Kinds of Possibility. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 78 (1):1–22.
Alan Berger (ed.) (2010). Saul Kripke. Cambridge University Press.
Brian MacPherson (1997). A Challenge to the Kripke/Putnam Distinction Between Epistemic and Metaphysical Necessity. Southwest Philosophy Review 13 (2):113--128.
Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward (1998). Kripke on Necessity and Identity. Philosophical Papers 27 (3):151-159.
Zsófia Zvolenszky (2006). Analytic Truths and Kripke's Semantic Turn. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):327-341.
Stephen Leeds (2007). Physical and Metaphysical Necessity. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (4):458–485.
Niko Strobach (1998). Time and Development in Kripke's “Naming and Necessity”. Theoria 13 (3):503-517.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads143 ( #3,753 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #13,419 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?