Kripke’s Category Error: Why There Are No Necessary A posteriori Propositions

Abstract

Kripke’s main argument against descriptivism is rooted in a category error that confuses statements about the world with statements about models of the world. It is only because of the ambiguity introduced by the fact that a single sentence can frame two different propositions, one necessary and the other a posteriori, that one reaches the mistaken conclusion that there can be necessary a posteriori truths. This ambiguity from language was carried over into modal logic by Kripke. However, we must consider the two different propositions (1) and (2) separately. Doing so reveals that a given proposition is either necessary and a priori or contingent and a posteriori. It cannot be both.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The necessary a posteriori: A response to tichý. [REVIEW]Curtis Brown - 1984 - Philosophical Studies 45 (3):379 - 397.
Proper Names, Contingency A Priori and Necessity A Posteriori.Chen Bo - 2011 - History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (2):119 - 138.
On Considering a Possible World as Actual.Robert Stalnaker & Thomas Baldwin - 2001 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 75:141-174.
On Defence of Kripke.Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati - 2024 - Logos and Episteme 15 (1):31-36.
Plantinga's Necessary A Posteriori Truths.Gregory W. Fitch - 1978 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 (2):323-327.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-04-19

Downloads
5,704 (#1,191)

6 months
3,241 (#128)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Tse
Dartmouth College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references