Saul Kripke

[bretty]

Generally what do you think of his work? I'm interested in him but I have no idea what he is about besides being interested in the philosophy of language.

I know Rosa might have something to say since he wrote on Wittgenstein.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

His work on W is brilliant, even if wrong (but it is wrong in illuminating ways, which makes it great philosophy).

His other stuff (i.e., that found in 'Naming and Necessity') is completely wrong! I will be saying something about it in a later Essay.

He stopped working about 20 years ago (I cannot say why, since it would be counted as slander!).

[bretty]

I think I'm going to pick up naming and necessity and his Wittgenstein stuff because everyone I've talked to has said he is a genius of sorts.

If you give him some thumbs up then he must be impressive in some sense of the word.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

His Book on W is a modern minor classic: 100% clear, rigorous, but in the end misguided.

There is a whole internet site (negatively) devoted to it:

http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~witt/

As a counterbalance, you should read David Bloor's 'Rules and Institutions', and the literature he suggests that supports a modified reading of K.

Certainly read 'Naming and Necessity', but his later work on W undermines practically everything in that book.

'Naming and Necessity' has a reputation for altering the course of Analytic Philosophy, and along with other theorists (notably Chomsky, Quine, and Davidson) of turning it back towards metaphysics (although these 3 would probably disown much that has been perpetrated in their names).

So, K's later work on W pulled the rug from under the new line of enquiry he had helped to initiate.

However, few have made this connection, and continue to write as if nothing had happened, and the results of 'Naming and Necessity' still stand.

I think I am one of the few who have spotted this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have just discovered this article on the net that criticises K's work in 'Naming and Necessity':

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:-UXqk...k&ct=clnk&cd=98 (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:-UXqkLwiFpcJ:info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/Beyond%2520the%2520linguistic%2520turn%2520.pdf+Be de+Rundle&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=98)

Available as a PDF here:

http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/B...c%20turn%20.pdf (http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/Beyond%20the%20linguistic%20turn%20.pdf)

[hoopla]

Well, I was doing some reading for a psychology essay, and he seems quite dominant still. I'm not a fan of mind-brain identity, are you Rosa?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'd be able to form an opinion just as soon as someone coud explain what the word 'mind' meant.

I have only been waiting for one for 25+ years.

But we have been here before: how can anything be identical with something else when they do not share a single property in common --, even if we knew what the 'mind' was to be able to ascribe any properties to 'it'?

[hoopla]

I think I understand now, how you feel when I right "gibberish" :D

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


I'd be able to form an opinion just as soon as someone coud explain what the word 'mind' meant.

So Rosa, are you a behaviorist then? Would you regard Wittgenstein as having been one? I have seen a number of commentators who read him as such, while I have seen plenty of other commentators who would deny this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JimFarr:


So Rosa, are you a behaviorist then? Would you regard Wittgenstein as having been one? I have seen a number of commentators who read him as such, while I have seen plenty of other commentators who would deny this.

No, Jim; as you should know, I am in fact a Nothing-at-all-ist in Philosophy.

Wittgenstein wasn't a behaviourist either -- not even a logical behaviourist.

Recall, I am not questioning the ordinary use of this term, just its metaphysical employment.

And I am not denying there is a 'mind'; if I do not understand what this word means when used metaphysically, I can hardly deny human beings have 'minds' -- any more than I can deny they have 'slithy toves'.

Recall W's words: the negation of nonsense is also nonsense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


I think I understand now, how you feel when I right "gibberish"

I am sorry, do you write anything other than this?

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Recall, I am not questioning the ordinary use of this term, just its metaphysical employment.

And I am not denying there is a 'mind'; if I do not understand what this word means when used metaphysically, I can hardly deny human beings have 'minds' -- any more than I can deny they have 'slithy toves'.

So how does your position differ from the one taken by Gilbert Ryle (in his The Concept of Mind), if it differs from his?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FimFarr:


So how does your position differ from the one taken by Gilbert Ryle (in his The Concept of Mind), if it differs from his?

Well, as I am sure I have already told you, like Wittgenstein, I do not have a 'position' on anything in Philosophy; I am happy to use only ordinary language.

I think Ryle made an important contribution to reversing the damage done by the Platonic/Christian/Augustinian/Cartesian tradition, but his was only a first attempt.

Anthony Kenny's books/articles in this area I think are more important (but he was openly extending Ryle's ideas).

'Action, Emotion and Will' is the book in this area, in my view.

[bretty]

So would Kripke's work be too advanced for a beginning logic student?

It's kind of funny I'm even asking this question, just because he was probably younger then me when he started writing 'naming and necessity'.

[hoopla]

Alright Bretty - how's philosophy class going, if you don't mind me asking?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, his work on modal logic is far too difficult, but his long essay on Wittgenstein is crystal clear, and a model piece of analytic philosophy -- even if it is ultimately wrong.

'Naming and Necessity' is just a mess, but still a clearly-written mess (and massively overrated).

[JimFar]

bretty wrote:


t's kind of funny I'm even asking this question, just because he was probably younger then me when he started writing 'naming and necessity'.

I believe that Kripke was still in high school when he wrote his first papers on logic. For that matter David Hume was still in his teens when he began the work which culminated in his first book, Treatise of Human Nature, which he completed by the time that he was 26 years old. Isaac Newton invented the calculus by the time that he was 21. Albert Einstein had already thought up his famous thought experiment concerning what would one see if one could race alongside a beam of light at the speed of light when he was only 16 or 17 years old. And he published his famous papers on special relativity, the photoelectric effect, and Brownian motion, in 1905 when he was 26 years old. And don't get me started on music prodigies like Motzart who were already incredible work when they were still preteens. Compared to these people, we are all a bunch of poor shmucks, but that doesn't mean that we still can't do useful work. And in some disciplines such as philosophy, there are people who didn't do their most important, groundshaking work until they were middle aged or even older. So there is still hope for the rest of us.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And my anti-dialectical ideas hit me when I was about 15.

[JimFar]

And my anti-dialectical ideas hit me when I was about 15.

Well, Rosa, nobody is going to be calling you a poor shmuck :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The trouble is that I only started serious work on it years later -- so I am a schmuck!!!

[hoopla]

The only thing that hit me when I was 15 was several generations of mental illness :blink: And I wrote some poetry - but it wasn't "Shakespeare".

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:10 am

And my anti-dialectical ideas hit me when I was about 15.

Well, Rosa, nobody is going to be calling you a poor shmuck :D
That's highly optimistic of you, Jim ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: just when I thought you and I could mend our ways, you go and say this!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop, I hope you are better now!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 11:41 am
Z: just when I thought you and I could mend our ways, you go and say this!
Sorry, Rosa. I can never resist a quip. No matter how facile.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z: Well, if we can treat each other with a little respect, we can at least agree to disagree over DM -- since it is quite clear that we agree over far more things than otherwise.

Now, in an earlier question, you asked me about empirical data -- let me say that if I cannot prove something (or, if I think I cannot), I will not assert whatever it is that I do assert -- and if it turns out that my proof is defective, I will either repair it or withdraw the relevant claims.

And that is a promise.

Now, when certain comrades found out about my Essays (about 2 years ago) they urged me to publish them on the internet forthwith, even though they were only half complete, and needed at least another 5 years work on them. I was worried that their impact would be reduced if the material was published piece-meal and too early (as things have turned out I was right, but also wrong in other respects – since, I get e-mails all the time from comrades thanking me for my work).

So, that is why the published data is incomplete.

In addition, 3/4's of my books and papers are in storage (and have been since February last year), since my partner decided to leave me because I was spending too much time on this project, and we had to sell our shared dwelling.

I am still looking for somewhere to live, and am in temporary accommodation at present (hence my techyness!).

As you will appreciate, this has crippled my ability to do research. However, even given those constraints (and the fact that I am largely working from memory!), I have enough evidence to show how this theory has crippled Trotskyism and Maoism. I am still working on Stalinism, but most of the material I have is unavailable to me at present.

You will find a summary of what I plan to show here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...DM.htm#Practice (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm#Practice)

Now, I think I can show all this to be true, but it will give you some idea of why I am so negative about this theory – and this is quite apart from the fact that I think I can prove this theory is incorrect from end to end, and depends on concepts found in ruling class thought (as I see things -- and I know you disagree with all this).

So, key features of my thesis are missing, but this is just a contingent spin-off from the fact that they have been published far too early, and I cannot access much of my own material.

I hope that clears things up a little – even if you still think I am thoroughly misguided.

[bretty]

So Rosa, what does Kripke achieve in his 'naming and necessity' does it include his work on modal logic or is that a different piece of work you were talking about?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

He allegedly succeeded in overturning anti-essentialism, and descriptivism; that is, he claimed to able to show that there were a posteriori necessary truths (countermanding much of post-Kantian theory), and to be able to show that names were so-called 'rigid designatores', they did not need (nor could they have) a cluster of definite desciptions to fix their reference (which had been one dominant view, derived from Russell).

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Kripke

The best criticism of the second topic can, I think, be found in Leonard Linsky's 'Names and Decsriptions'.

Of the first, probably John Dupre's 'The Disorder of Things', but there are many others.

His work on modal logic is different, but clealry connected with the above.

[hoopla]

Rosa, can you tell me what "language as the universal medium" is? Apparently its from Hintikka's reading of Wittgenstein. Thanks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop: well, as much as I admire Hintikka's work, I do not have a handle on it all.

So you will need to tell me where this is from, or at least the context, before I can assist you.

[hoopla]

It does not matter, I think I have found out: The relation between language and world is inepxressable. Which apparently one can only hint at.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop, well I do not think it is that, from what I know of Hintikka's work.

But, about the inexpressibility of the link you mention, W's ideas on this are far more technical, and profound.

If you can obtain that book I mentioned on another thread, it will explain this to you better than any book I have so far read.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58280

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27, 2007 01:29 am
If you can obtain that book I mentioned on another thread, it will explain this to you better than any book I have so far read.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58280
Hmmm, I don't think I'll manage to read that for a while - I have 15 books on Heidegger to compress into 1000 words. Its going to be impossibily difficult as I haven't remebered anything from them. I thought this was going to be a good essay :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Good luck with that!

I think I'd rather listen to the collected wisdom of Georg W Bush than read anything by Heidegger (again!).

[hoopla]

Heidegger is proper crazy!

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:16 am
Heidegger is proper crazy!
Worse, he was a Nazi.

[hoopla]

Yeah. I've recently read a book that tries to link his thoughts to contemporary communist thought, e.g. Zizek. So it can't all be bad. He was very influential on deconstruction and the like.

:ph34r:

[bretty]

Honestly Heidegger makes no sense. I've tried reading his work and he deliberately says things that could be said much much easier [see 'question concerning technology'].

The way he uses language makes his work completely nonsensical. One thing I noticed that irritated me in his 'being and time' is that he suggests time is its own thing. Can anyone verify this or expand? Because if you read any modern physics books it is referred to as space-time now.

I'm quickly moving away from anything metaphysical (due to alot of Rosa's recommendations).

[JimFar]

Rudolf Carnap said nearly the same things concerning Heidegger seventy years ago as Bretty, but several generations of continental philosophers refused to heed Carnap, so Bretty is already a few steps ahead of them IMO.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, have you read Paul Edwards 'Heidegger’s Confusions'?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:40 pm
Rosa wrote:


Recall, I am not questioning the ordinary use of this term, just its metaphysical employment.

And I am not denying there is a 'mind'; if I do not understand what this word means when used metaphysically, I can hardly deny human beings have 'minds' -- any more than I can deny they have 'slithy toves'.

So how does your position differ from the one taken by Gilbert Ryle (in his The Concept of Mind), if it differs from his?
Good old gilbert eh...

I am reading concept of mind now. Reminds me of Hume - always wittering on about human character and the like. Whats the point in that then?

:angry:

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:44 pm
ecause if you read any modern physics books it is referred to as space-time now.
Well if philosophy of science could say that time is not really existent then I assume that they could also say that time is separate. My lecturer seems to think he can say that time isn't real anyway. Not sure if he does or not, but you see what I'm getting at.

I could find a Merleau-Ponty quote about this sort of thing.. science is the most dogmatic expression of the naive faith in the being of the world. It tries to reduce everything to the "Great Object" but this is impossible (we cannot explaion the visual field objectively because it cannot be described objectiovely) and is refuted by teh results of science (I forget which. Probabl observer stuff).

Being is not the Being-object :angry:

[bretty]

Originally posted by hoopla+February 19, 2007 05:33 am--> (hoopla @ February 19, 2007 05:33 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 05:44 pm
ecause if you read any modern physics books it is referred to as space-time now.
Well if philosophy of science could say that time is not really existent then I assume that they could also say that time is separate. My lecturer seems to think he can say that time isn't real anyway. Not sure if he does or not, but you see what I'm getting at.

I could find a Merleau-Ponty quote about this sort of thing.. science is the most dogmatic expression of the naive faith in the being of the world. It tries to reduce everything to the "Great Object" but this is impossible (we cannot explaion the visual field objectively because it cannot be described objectiovely) and is refuted by teh results of science (I forget which. Probabl observer stuff).

Being is not the Being-object :angry: [/b]
'they' can assume whatever they want.

As Wittgenstein said roughly: "there are many interpretations, but only ever one meaning".

[bretty]

Rosa I finished reading Kripke's interpretation on rules and private language of Wittgenstein.

I'm sort of curious as to why you, and others I'm sure do not take his account to be accurate?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's mainly because he attributes to Wittgenstein a sceptical approach to this topic.

K also derives a 'position' he thinks W has adopted, which, as I am sure you know, W adamantly rejected as his any part of his aims.

There is, for W, no one single way to analyse rules.

The best account of certain aspects of rules, as W saw them, can be found in Guy Robinson's book, 'Philosophy and Mystification'.

Guy is a Marxist and W expert; his website contains a few of his Essays:

http://www.guyrobinson.net/

[hoopla]

Originally posted by bretty+February 21, 2007 05:13 am--> (bretty @ February 21, 2007 05:13 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:33 am

[email protected] 04, 2007 05:44 pm
ecause if you read any modern physics books it is referred to as space-time now.
Well if philosophy of science could say that time is not really existent then I assume that they could also say that time is separate. My lecturer seems to think he can say that time isn't real anyway. Not sure if he does or not, but you see what I'm getting at.

I could find a Merleau-Ponty quote about this sort of thing.. science is the most dogmatic expression of the naive faith in the being of the world. It tries to reduce everything to the "Great Object" but this is impossible (we cannot explaion the visual field objectively because it cannot be described objectiovely) and is refuted by teh results of science (I forget which. Probabl observer stuff).

Being is not the Being-object :angry:
'they' can assume whatever they want.

As Wittgenstein said roughly: "there are many interpretations, but only ever one meaning". [/b]
What and earth does this mean :huh:

And why have you put 'they' in quotation marks?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, check this out:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/kripkeconjuring.htm

[bretty]

I'll be sure to check it out when I get a chance.. Right now I'm reading Anthony Kenny's book on Wittgenstein however.

One thing I liked about Kripke interpretation of Wittgenstein is the humility he put forth in the book and always made sure he was never taken to present Wittgenstein's views entirely infallible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You are right; whatever one thinks of his exposition of W, this book by Kripke is clearly a work of genius. I have nothing but admiration for it. Would that other philosophers wrote so clearly!