What are the limits of rigid designation?

What is a rigid designator Kripke?

Kripke says that a rigid designator is a word that picks out the same thing in all possible worlds in which it designates at all. Examples of rigid designators include proper names and names of proper types.

Why are proper names rigid designators?

Proper names rigidly designate for reasons that differ from natural kinds terms. The reason ‘Johnny Depp’ refers to one particular person in all possible worlds is because some person initially gave the name to him by saying something like “Let’s call our baby ‘Johnny Depp'”.

What is Kripke’s modal argument?

Princeton University. The Modal Argument. In Naming and Necessity,’ Saul Kripke gives three types of argument against. semantic theories that analyze the meaning, or reference, of proper names in terms of the meaning, or denotation, of descriptions associated with those names by speakers.

Do rigid designators exist?

A rigid designator designates the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists and never designates anything else. This technical concept in the philosophy of language has critical consequences felt throughout philosophy.

Are there necessary a posteriori truths?

ARE THERE NECESSARY A POSTERIORI TRUTHS? that if one accepts Kripke’s views on rigid designators together with two other rather plausible assumptions, then one cannot accept the example that Kripke presents as a case of a necessary a posteriori truth.

What is metaphysical modality?

Metaphysical modality is the modality that is typically at stake in philosophical argumentation (e.g., St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument, Rene Descartes’ Argument for Mind-Body Dualism, George Berkeley’s Argument for Idealism).

What is possibility and necessity?

Possibility and necessity are related. Something is possible if its failing to occur is not necessary; if something is necessary, its failure to occur is not possible. Divers (2002), 3-4, provides a nice summary: “Possibility rules out impossibility and requires (exclusively) contingency or necessity.

What is modal logic used for?

A modal is an expression (like ‘necessarily’ or ‘possibly’) that is used to qualify the truth of a judgement. Modal logic is, strictly speaking, the study of the deductive behavior of the expressions ‘it is necessary that’ and ‘it is possible that’.

What is the difference between priori and posteriori?

“A priori” and “a posteriori” refer primarily to how, or on what basis, a proposition might be known. In general terms, a proposition is knowable a priori if it is knowable independently of experience, while a proposition knowable a posteriori is knowable on the basis of experience.

Are all necessary truths knowable a priori?

Therefore, we have good reason to accept a picture similar to the traditional one in which contingent truths can only be known a posteriori and necessary truths must be knowable a priori though we must revise the traditional account to allow that some necessary truths can be known a posteriori as well.

What is contingent truth?

A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true.

What is a priori truth?

Definitions. As we have seen in our initial meeting with examples, an a priori truth is something that can be known independently of any particular evidence or experience. This rough and ready idea has been the basis of the claim to a priority for each of our examples.

What is synthetic truth?

Synthetic truths are true both because of what they mean and because of the way the world is, whereas analytic truths are true in virtue of meaning alone. “Snow is white,” for example, is synthetic, because it is true partly because of what it means and partly because snow has a certain color.

What is rational truth?

Philosophers refer to these truths as rational or a priori truths, meaning that they are true prior to experience. These statements can take the form of two equal sides, like an equation, or the statement “A spinster is female and unmarried”.

What is subjective truth?

A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person’s perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input – our senses, our perception.

Who is the father of rationalism?

René Descartes

René Descartes is generally considered the father of modern philosophy. He was the first major figure in the philosophical movement known as rationalism, a method of understanding the world based on the use of reason as the means to attain knowledge.

Is knowledge rational or empirical?

Rationalism is the viewpoint that knowledge mostly comes from intellectual reasoning, and empiricism is the viewpoint that knowledge mostly comes from using your senses to observe the world.

What are the limits of human knowledge?

The Limits of Human Understanding: Ideas are not Innate

The steps to understanding first start with an idea; Locke explains ideas as objects of understanding when man thinks. There are three levels to understanding, or knowledge, certainty, evidence, and extent.

Is knowledge innate or acquired?

In philosophy and psychology, an innate idea is knowledge or a concept that is considered universal to all humanity; it is something people are born with rather than something learned through experience.

Who is the father of empiricism?

Sir Francis Bacon

Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena.

Who is the father of science?

Galileo Galilei

Albert Einstein called Galileo the “father of modern science.” Galileo Galilei was born on February 15, 1564, in Pisa, Italy but lived in Florence, Italy for most of his childhood. His father was Vincenzo Galilei, an accomplished Florentine mathematician, and musician.

Is Aristotle an empiricist?

Aristotle can be classed as a tabula rasa empiricist, for he rejects the claim that we have innate ideas or principles of reasoning. He is also, arguably, an explanatory empiricist, although in a different sense from that found among later medical writers and sceptics.