It would also be great to know what he's working on as of now. I understand that many of his works are passed hand to hand, which adds some mystery to his already big persona. Some insight on why this is the case would be great as well.
Thank you.
Hello everyone, we are a group of avid philosophy readers and in mid-May we will start a reading group on Kripke's classic work. The meetings will be weekly and last 90 minutes each.
It will be an in depth reading without prior knowledge required. To achieve the reading will proceed slowly, a few pages per week. The group moderator (who btw is not me) has a Master in philosophy, works as a researcher at university and has a long standing interest in the philosophy of language.
If this sounds appealing to you, let me know either by commenting below or by sending me a PM. We will try to establish a day and time that works for as many people as possible(bearing in mind we live in very different time zones).
As you probably know, Saul Kripke is widely regarded as one of the greatest analytic philosophers of the 20th century known for revolutionizing modal logic, introducing rigid designators, and offering a radical interpretation of Wittgenstein. A child prodigy, he was asked by Harvard to become a professor before he even graduated high school. However, most people don't know that he is a theist, dualist, and obervant Jew. Here is a quote from this 2001 interview:
>Kripke is Jewish, and he takes this seriously. He is not a nominal Jew and he is careful keeping the Sabbath, for instance he doesnβt use public transportation on Saturdays. He thinks religion can help him in philosophy:
>
>βI donβt have the prejudices many have today, I donβt believe in a naturalist world view. I donβt base my thinking on prejudices or a world view and do not believe in materialism.β
>
>He claims that many people think that they have a scientific world view and believe in materialism, but that this is an ideology.
This isn't an argument from authority, I just want to show that the notion that philosopher's can't be religious or theists is baseless.
Interested in Kripke on a very surface level. I understand his refutation of Frege and Russell's work on reference/namimg in "Naming and Necessity", but get lost when he starts addressing the mind/body problem.
Iβm interested in his ideas as I have read over and over on how he is one of (if not ) the greatest in contemporary philosophy.
I'm just curious if anybody in here has bumped into one of the pre-eminent living analytic philosophers in their wanderings through various NYC-area shuls.
For anyone unfamiliar, he's the author of Naming and Necessity.
One of the greatest living philosophers, wrote extensively about belief and the existence of truth.
I like when Sam talks to people with big unwieldy ideas, could be an interesting guest.
He will be missed.
I want to work with this subject and I am therefor looking for possible entry points, critiques or possible arguments Kripke might have missed. Thank you
I need help with a 6 to 8 pages-long homework, and I have the blank page syndrome. I'm translating from french. Here is the question : ''Kripke wants to explain the true meaning of concepts either a priori, a posteriori, of necessity and contingency, of analytic and synthetic. To do so, he frequently uses experiences in thought that generate intuitions concerning the use and significance of these concepts.
From your perspective, is the use of intuitions produced by these imaginary scenarios an adequate source of justification to explain concepts and solve these philosophical problems? Are experiences in thought a form of a priori or a posteriori justification?''
That's a mouthfull. I know you guys won't do everything, but every bit helps. thank you
In his lectures on reference and existence, Kripke uses a strange symbol in some of his formulas. In the print version I'm reading, both in proposition (1) and (3) the symbol is the same, while in this pdf I found online, two different symbols are used. Prop. 1 and 3 are on page 24,25 of the attached pdf. The sign I'm referring is the little hook before the x. Thanks
Edit: I assume it is supposed to express some type of emphasis on the fact that it is the unique, particular man who lead the israelites etc. etc.
Kripke needs no introduction. However, I don't really hear about him that much on a daily basis anymore. What's he up to these days? Is he still making groundbreaking discoveries or leading philosophical research?
So I understand the basic idea, but I would like to know some of the repercussions or consequences this has? What are the implications? It just doesn't seem like a big deal to me but from what I hear this is supposed to be a big deal. Why?
Also, how widely are his views accepted? Does he really leave no room for descriptivist theories whatsoever? What about names of things which do not exist?
