creativesoul

Well, they certainly do not accurately represent my own position, which could be viewed as a form of essentialism, although I wouldn't think that it i...

Parrots do not draw the correlation between the name and what's being named. The speech act theorists called that something or other, didn't they? The...

When you drew the correlation between the name and the thing being named that the community of speakers had already drawn.

Yes there are, but that criterion is not Kripke's target. As it pertains to the lectures, I too have issue with the definition and theses that Kripke ...

Yup. I mean those are what he's arguing against. He is doing so by using proper nouns in possible world scenarios and pointing out what's going on whe...

Well, it seems that those statement amount to somewhat of an argument in favor of some form of essentialism. In addition, they also argue in favor of ...

There is a distinction between counterfactuals and possible world scenarios. Facts are; events, states of affairs, the way things were/are, reality. F...

Are you asking me how to count the things being said about a proper noun in a possible world scenario? :meh:

:yikes:

Uh... no. That's clear enough.

Seems that the following is worth posting for reference... (1) To every name or designating expression 'X', there corresponds a cluster of properties,...

Yes. I recall at least a couple of times that he explicitly denied that he was offering a theory.

I don't think that Kripke is divorcing identity from description. I think he's using the fact that possible world semantics allow us to stipulate diff...

Hmmm... I don't see anyone taking that stance. It's not about what one can imagine about someone picked out of this world. For me, at least, it's much...

It is when positing possible worlds. The identity is without issue even when we stipulate different descriptions... which is part of what Kripke is po...

In possible world scenarios shown by Kripke, definite descriptions are not necessary to identify the objects(including people), for they have already ...

Wasn't disagreeing with you in the second quote. Was attempting to summarize Kripke. I still stand by both quotes.

That's true in all cases of talking about setting definitive descriptions aside and positing alternatives. It does not matter whether or not the alter...

All it takes for a possible world scenario to not be counterfactual is for it to be true. Some possible world scenarios are true.

Deep? I don't know about all that. Simple? Surely. If everyone believes that Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon, but he - in fact - ...

In the domain of talking about what's going on with possible world semantics; in terms of what we're doing when we pick out this person from this worl...

You're missing the point because I have yet to have made it clear.

Kripke knowingly posits a falsehood(Nixon was not president) in order to support the idea that being president does not(is unnecessary in order to) id...

The man who invented the atomic bomb was not Einstein. Someone who believed that he did will use that description as a means to identify Einstein. As ...

Seems that Kripke - for some inexplicable reason - is demanding that a description about someone be true in order to identify the person. Names are no...

"The first man who walked on the moon" picks out Neil Armstrong. If someone other than Neil Armstrong was the first man who walked on the moon, then t...

I do not think that Kripke's examples have what it takes to dismiss essential parts/properties wholesale. He uses another's false belief about both Ei...

I can say that I imagine a world in which Richard Nixon did not do any of the things that he is infamous for. I can use the name Nixon, and stipulate ...

Why the "uniquely"? If Kripke is simply granting another's notion to show it's flaws, then that's fine. However, if that is the case, then there are o...

Not all possible world scenarios are counterfactual.

Yes. This is a case of mistaken identity. That is, everyone who uses "Prothobis" think that it identifies a guy who frequents a coffee shop; this guy....

Under what possible world circumstances would we have a clear-cut case of mistaken identity? Surely our hypothetical meanderings are prone for such. I...

Ok. I'm over it. This is more inline with Kripke's lectures... Are there specific circumstances that are essential to making Nixon who he is? What's l...

I'm actually pointing out what Kripke's lectures do not cover. Nothing I've said here contradicts anything Kripke says about proper names as they appl...

If your reality is all a result of your ideas, your design... Then why the fuck are you asking anyone else anything at all? Better yet... How?

Why does it have to be one or the other? There is no Reason without emotion. That is Hume's fatal flaw. He is not alone.

We're left with the dire need for a standard by which we can determine what is both necessary and sufficient for being X, when X is a composite(a grou...

Kripke uses possible world semantics without ever considering what they are existentially dependent upon... there's nothing enlightening about using r...

Morality is the rules of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Morality is a human condition. We are interdependent social creatures by our very nature. ...

What an overly simplistic and naive way to think... Tell that to the down trodden poor folk who suffer at the hands of the richest in their communitie...

Die.

Sorry ladies and gentlemen... I'm going to retire from this one. I've struggled as much as I can take to set aside the fact that I reject possible wor...

Possible world semantics are existentially dependent upon thinking about one's own thought/belief. There's much groundwork already laid long before we...

Ok. Looks like we're on to the second lecture. I'm good with that, but just wanted to say one last thing regarding some ongoing disputes between sever...

Coming from one who prides himself on brevity... Thanks! :smile: I think I'm beginning to understand Kripke's take here... and his aim... but I'm stil...

Hmmm... "a particular"? Particulars are stipulated though, right? Objects are named. Otherwise, the aforementioned self-contradiction...

So... What is your take on what's most important for the reader to firmly grasp in lecture one? I'm almost certain that I'm missing something somewher...

Okay. So, Kripke is summarizing what's going on when we talk about possible worlds. He's noting(and naming) the different kinds of designators as a me...

...