O nieadekwatności Bertranda Russella rozróżnienia na prymarne i sekundarne użycie zwrotów denotujących

W swojej przełomowej pracy „Denotowanie” Bertrand Russell wprowadza rozróżnienie pomiędzy prymarnym i sekundarnym użyciem zwrotów denotujących. Rozróżnienie umożliwia opis wieloznaczności niektórych zdań zawierających zwroty denotujące. Jak zauważył Saul Kripke, chociaż rozróżnienie Russella wydaje się być dychotomiczne, niektóre wieloznaczne zdania zawierające zwroty denotujące można interpretować na więcej niż tylko dwa sposoby. W niniejszym artykule argumentuję, że istnieją jeszcze inne możliwe interpretacje, niewzmiankowane ani przez Russella, ani Kripkego. Ponadto pokazuję, że te inne możliwe interpretacje różnią się również od tzw. odczytań Fodor.

“I Said Something Wrong”: Transworld Obligation in Yesterday

Danny Boyle's film Yesterday (2019) is a contemporary morality play in which the main character, Jack Malik, a failing singer-songwriter, is magically sent to a different possible world in which the Beatles never existed. Possessing his memory of the Beatles’ catalogue in the new possible world, he is now in sole possession of an extremely valuable artifact. Recording and performing the songs of the Beatles and passing them off as his own, he becomes rich, famous, and deeply unhappy. Once he confesses his wrong-doing, however, he is redeemed and his life becomes wonderful. The presupposition that underlays the plot is that in claiming authorship of the songs of the Beatles in a world in which the Beatles never existed, he is acting immorally. But on what theoretical grounds can this intuitive judgment be justified? Can one plagiarize work for which there is no author in one's world? Saul Kripke, in Naming and Necessity, dubs terms that refer in all possible worlds to be “rigid designators” and considers the metaphysics necessary to support them. In this case, it is not reference but moral responsibility that is invariant under changes of possible world and so we must ask a similar question for “rigid obligators.” We argue that a virtue ethics approach is the only way to support the foundational moral intuition.

Frege, Poincaré, Carnap, Kripke: cuatro réplicas a un dogma kantiano

I present the replies that Gottlob Frege, Henri Poincaré, Rudolf Carnap, and Saul Kripke made to the assumption that apriority and necessity are interchangeable synonyms, an assumption that I take, together with the assumptions that there is a split between analytic truths and synthetic truths and that there is a dichotomy between our conceptual schemes and empirical content, as a Kantian dogma.

SAUL KRIPKE: A CRÍTICA À TEORIA DESCRITIVISTA DOS NOMES PRÓPRIOS

Este artigo almeja estudar a crítica do filósofo Saul Kripke à Teoria Descritivista dos Nomes Próprios. O artigo contém quatro seções. A primeira seção investigará a relação entre a Teoria Descritivista dos Nomes Próprios e a ideia de designadores rígidos. A segunda seção tratará do diálogo direto e indireto entre diferentes autores e a crítica kripkeana. A terceira seção estudará a lógica e a semântica de Kripke. A quarta e última seção investigará a interpretação kripkeana de Wittgenstein, assim como a relação entre a teoria dos nomes e o Paradoxo Cético.

Seguir regras e significado: o argumento cético-semântico revisitado

No presente artigo proponho-me a reconstruir, o mais claramente possível o “paradoxo cético” a partir do modo como apresentado por Saul Kripke em seu Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982). Seu argumento sustenta que não há fatos ou razões que justifiquem nosso emprego de termos como dotados de significados. Para tanto, interponho as distinções que julgo pertinentes à adequada compreensão do tema, formulando os requisitos necessários à sua adequada resposta, a saber, o ontológico, o normativo e o da identificação extensional no tempo. Ao final, contrasto o ceticismo ora objeto de análise com sua versão epistemológica clássica. AbstractIn the present paper I propose to rebuild as clearly as possible the “skeptical paradox” from the way presented by Saul Kripke in his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982). His argument maintains that there are no facts or reasons justifying our use of terms as having meaning. Therefore, I interpose the distinctions that I consider relevant to the proper understanding of the subject and I formulate the requirements necessary for its proper response, namely the ontological, the normative and the extensional identification in time. Finally, I contrast semantic skepticism with its classical epistemological version.

Translation and metaphysics: a case for fictional characters

Se traduções diferentes de uma mesma obra literária têm sintaxes e semânticas diferentes, como elas podem ser sobre um e o mesmo personagem ficcional? Para responder essa pergunta é necessário (a) saber o que são personagens ficcionais e (b) apresentar suas condições de referência. A partir das obras de Amie Thomasson (1999, 2003, 2007) e Saul Kripke (1980, 2013), defendo que personagens ficcionais são artefatos abstratos cuja referência é fixada pelo batismo performado por um autor; e que a identidade de um personagem ficcional é preservada através da manutenção da mesma cadeia de referência. Por fim, mostro como os tradutores mantêm a cadeia de referência iniciada pelo autor de determinada obra e como consequentemente um personagem ficcional permanece o mesmo artefato abstrato no decorrer de diferentes traduções.

The Threat of Privacy in Wittgenstein’s Investigations: Kripke vs. Cavell

Most readers of the Investigations take skepticism as a target of Wittgenstein’s remarks, something to be refuted by means of a clear grasp of our criteria. Stanley Cavell was the first to challenge that consensual view by reminding us that our criteria are constantly open to skeptical repudiation, hence that privacy is a standing human possibility. In an apparently similar vein, Saul Kripke has argued that a skeptical paradox concerning rules and meaning is the central problem of the Investigations – and one that receives a skeptical solution. Following the orthodoxy, however, Kripke does not take privacy as a real threat but instead reads Wittgenstein as offering an argument against its very possibility. This paper offers a critical assessment of Kripke’s and Cavell’s readings, and concludes by delineating an understanding of our linguistic practices that acknowledges the seriousness of skepticism while avoiding the kind of evasion shared by Kripke and the orthodoxy, enabling us to see agreement and meaning as continual tasks whose failure is imbued with high existential costs.

The Predicate of Existence

Kant famously declared that existence is not a (real) predicate. This famous dictum has been seen as echoed in the doctrine of the founders of modern logic, Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that existence isn’t a first-order property possessed by individuals, but rather a second-order property expressed by the existential quantifier. Russell in 1905 combined this doctrine with his new theory of descriptions and declared the paradox of nonexistence to be resolved without resorting to his earlier distinction between existence and being. In recent years, however, logicians and philosophers like Saul Kripke, David Kaplan, and Nathan Salmon have argued that there is no defensible reason to deny that existence is a property of individuals. Kant’s dictum has also been re-evaluated, the result being that the paradox of nonexistence has not, after all, disappeared. Yet it’s not clear how exactly Kripke et al. propose to resolve the paradox.