schopenhauer1

This is precisely what he Kripke was against- a "descriptivist theory of names". Saying "Richard Nixon is the guy who was president" is not true in al...

The water is actually water (that would be an analytic truth :smile: ). Your Richard Nixon named kid is actually Richard Nixon. In all possible worlds...

This wouldn't change much I think. Just like there can be two Johns who are not the same person, so too do you have two waters. It is not the name its...

Kripke introduces "all possible worlds" to the idea of natural kinds. So, in all possible worlds, the term "water" is always H20. This means that wate...

I believe he thought a priori truths to be necessary and/or universal. I would assume he is saying they are the same thing. Really the tricky part wit...

First thing that might cause confusion is the addition of necessary and contingent. Though very related to synthetic and analytic, it is different, an...

I could be wrong, but looking at this debate, it seems that the basis for your confusions as to each other's arguments and conclusions is not clearly ...

Granted, but besides eschewing descriptivist theories of names, what is the significance of his program for grammar if not implications that are metap...

Can you explain this approach of fixing rigid designators? I know that causal theories have problems because you can designate a name as rigid, but ca...

Then this obviously needs to be fleshed out in order for me to agree or critique it. The question at hand is what is mind. The hard part is the very a...

I don't know, you mentioned everything is information, not matter or mind- which causes dualism, or something like that. I thought you were saying tha...

I see what you (Kripke?) are getting at. This idea is that there is a sort of "prime cause" for which kinds/individuals can hearken back to as their o...

But these illusions are happening in the bigger "illusion". Everything that takes place, is a priori taking place in the illusion (of representation, ...

These are problems that arise from the hard problem of consciousness. These are the (practically) intractable, ever-debatable problems and hence the m...

It was just an example, but how it is that all material is mental or all mental is material is the hard question. The OP mentioned that often one or t...

The ice cream has a molecular structure- explained through chemistry. Desires have perhaps a molecular counterpart (interactions of the brain), but it...

Granted. I think these are two different questions. Yours might help in answering the solipsism question, "Can mind and matter interact?". But I think...

How does, let's say, "my desire for food" (desire interaction?), or "the ability to use a computer" (technology interaction), answer the question of h...

But most people are discussing how mind and matter are the same or different, not just how mind projects itself into the world. The hard questions of ...

This is exactly what I've been trying to say regarding my complaint with Schopenhauer's monistic metaphysics between Will and representation or any mo...

I don't think proper names can be descriptions in modal logic. As far as the other thing there, you are trying to understand a theory of truth between...

Again, I don't know what you mean. I guess he is using modal logic as his proof of this. That is part of his innovation I think.

I don't know what you mean, but he is countering arguments made earlier by philosophers like Russell who argue for a descriptivist theory of names.

As far as I know, he is correcting the idea that proper names and kinds are just placeholders for descriptions using modal logic. Thus using modal log...

That seems pretty good evidence to me of some sort of substance based metaphysics. We can call it whatever you want or feel comfortable with if you li...

How is that exactly the opposite? I said he was AGAINST the idea that rigid designators are definite descriptions.

Kripke is against trying to equate a rigid designator as a definite description. Why? In all possible worlds, descriptions can be mutable- able to be ...

A bit dismissive being it’s a pretty substantive point but so be it.

Hello? Not sure if you saw last reply.

Well, it’s not descriptive based, and I saw Banno connecting with idea of substance so I assumed that Kripke was making some sort of case that rigid d...

Then is it substance based? And what does that even mean?

I think the main point of Kripke is that there are essential necessities. But is this the same as essential properties or is there a difference betwee...

Honestly it is what I've seen on these forums. This type of response inspired me: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/241534 https://the...

That is the consequence yes. Your assumption is that there is somehow value to the perpetuity at the species level. Unlike other animals which we are ...

It is a matter of what the status quo is defined, but we can say broadly defending the current social, political, ethical, and even metaphysical ideas...

Exterminated is not the correct word though. Preventing people from coming into existence is passive. No one is forcefully doing anything to actual pe...

Absolutely it is. I just don't like being taunted and provoked. Also when it gets to a level where I have to look four strings back to get to he heart...

Look, I am not going to do this back and forth anymore for a fourth round. I can answer every individual point, but this would never end, and the deba...

Doesn't bother me. Oh, and it doesn't bother "him" either ¯\_(?)_/¯. Doesn't bother me. Oh, and it doesn't bother "him" either ¯\_(?)_/¯. The future p...

The future person. Preventing harm and adversity for them. Guess what though? No one needs be deprived of the flipside of the benefits :D. In the scen...

You have some very well-stated points. I often think the same thing. There is a mindlessness to procreation, which is so at odds with the immense phil...

Why not ALL the Church Fathers (those who wrote doctrine a generations later than Paul), attest to his influence, and there are at least 7 epistles th...

It's meant for both. Ideally the axiom would be taken at face value as true, but of course, it is always me defending the asymmetry that while it is p...

Perhaps you should read a little of it. I presented his main point. If you don't like it, then explain why other than that you want me to put more exp...

. I don't have time to find them.. but there are plenty of copy pasting from the book in that thread. Maybe later I'll try to find them for you.

Really? In the scenario of whether it is good to start life vs. good to continue it once born, I believe these to be separate situations. Once born, i...

Look at the Global Antinatalism thread.

The reason I say it's a whole book is that all I'm going to end up doing is copy pasting long passages which I've already done enough of.

Yes he wrote a whole book on it. Ironically your argument for it not being much of an argument is not much of an argument.

The best source is David Benatar's "The Harm of Coming into Existence" and his idea of an asymmetry between benefit and harm when it comes to the ques...