Kripke on the Descriptive Theory of Names

Рет қаралды 27,563

Daniel Bonevac

7 жыл бұрын

Kripke on the Descriptive Theory of Names, lecture I of Naming and Necessity

Пікірлер: 42

@indigomalatt2687 3 жыл бұрын

amazing that someone is able to go through Russell, Mill and Kripke and yet remain so cheerful

@ueeneri 3 жыл бұрын

I don't mean to imply you are anything but a decent person! I am sure you are. It just seems like an interesting point of departure.

@ginogarcia8730 2 ай бұрын

coming back here after listening through other stuff - thanks Professor Bonevac

@cara_rima 5 жыл бұрын

feel like 70% of this was summarizing Frege and Russel theories on names rather than Kripke

@s.combis2866 4 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much. This is a great lecture. I needed this. 💌

@soebredden 3 жыл бұрын

It is very clear from the start that: A name can have a unique referent without having any of the propperties or descriptives that is known. That is why Russel/Frege theory is wrong. Personly I believe that Frege never ment it that way and that it is Russel who insisted on the void of enteties in language and symbols

@ryang7759 3 жыл бұрын

excellent lecture. excited to give it a 2nd read now.

@treyb3693 3 жыл бұрын

If we name a river, there is a benefit to its recognition. It is this latter level of observation that is important because at another level of observation and analysis, the water is completely different from one moment to the next. The establishment of necessity is a cognitive process, and the attribution of necessity is questionable from the perspective of objectivity. The attribution of necessity is subjective and intersubjective oftentimes. The agreement between thinkers attributing necessity to events and objects is intersubjective. For relations of ideas (maths etc.), there is often objectivity based upon certain assumptions. For the concept of world, there are three possibilities, no world, one possible and real world, and more than one world, which includes the real world. Focusing just on the latter possibility is misguided, which is what Kripke and D. Lewis do.

@NoNTr1v1aL 3 жыл бұрын

Amazing video!

@liorab9753 Жыл бұрын

what a brilliant lecture!! thank you so Pro. Bonevac 3>

@bomichaels9602 5 жыл бұрын

if we had a good theory of names what would stop us from applying that to any word?

@BobMcCoy 5 жыл бұрын

Descwiptive theowy?

@theorbization 3 жыл бұрын

anyone got a citation for that directory of modal logics mentioned at the start?

@chronicskeptic 5 жыл бұрын

Professor Bonevac, I want to ask a question. I have a hard time understanding the philosophy of language. To understand Frege's Sense and Reference I had to read it three times. I still do not think I understood. Kripke is also hard for me to understand. Is it because of abstract concepts? Is it hard for students in general or is this my problem? :(( Can you give me some advice to be able to understand these abstract concepts? When I read I really cannot understand and this frustrates me so much, I stop reading. Your lectures made my life easy, thank you for this!

@PhiloofAlexandria 5 жыл бұрын

First, don't feel bad-this is difficult for everyone. I think Frege is especially challenging because he's sorting out a lot of these issues for the first time, with very little tradition to go on. That means that he's not always putting things very clearly, or expressing an idea in a way that's very easy to understand. I find him harder to interpret than Russell or other figures, partly for that reason. Some of his examples, too, are rich, in the sense that several important things are going on in them. It can be hard to isolate the various aspects of the example. Second, as you become more familiar with the authors in the tradition, you get a feel for the concepts and arguments that makes each new thing you learn easier than what went before. I think this is true of many abstract subjects; getting the first few concepts is difficult, but each additional concept becomes easier, because you have a conceptual context in which to locate it. So, don't get discouraged!

@chronicskeptic 5 жыл бұрын

@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you so much!

@danksamosa3952 4 жыл бұрын

Watch his lectures, everything feels ez

@aileenfowler3967 2 жыл бұрын

Same here

@MaksRos 2 жыл бұрын

goat

@millerelad 4 жыл бұрын

If like Arthur didnt exist, i see no problem- his tag is removed & placed over the legend (myth), so i dont think there is a problem in that sense with Mill's approach.

@sawtoothiandi 5 жыл бұрын

any president should have basic background in language theory!! would clear up some problems we seem to be having. difference between direct speech and self-serving propaganda!!

@matthewfrazier9254 7 жыл бұрын

His sorting of modal logic systems sounds very similar to ed witten merging all the string theories into one. Very neat!!

@BenWeinsteinRaun 2 жыл бұрын

Chester A. Arthur: The person who was president of the United States and would have agreed that "Chester A. Arthur" was his name.

@BenWeinsteinRaun 2 жыл бұрын

(this works for President Arthur but probably not King Arthur)

@pmcate2 4 жыл бұрын

You sat in on a Kripke lecture when you were 15?? Also, you mention at 21:25 about accidentally labeling something twice. This is similar to uniqueness proofs in mathematics. Usually we say that two objects have the same property, label them differently, then we show that those labels actually represent the same object. So Frege and Russell would then not approve of this?

@capitalist_cosmonaut451 3 жыл бұрын

He means he was 15 then not at the lecture just 15 on the same day

@dieweltweltetshankardeepu2734 7 жыл бұрын

How about Lenin professor can't we refer to him

@abdellahbenny3960 3 жыл бұрын

Walter White

@javiervonsydow 2 жыл бұрын

Had to stop one fifth of the way not because the professor was not trying with all his gifts but because the proposition was lacking. Does not add anything of value (in my humble view) to what Aristotle described as the essence that lies in a name or concept.

@michellediamond8268 7 жыл бұрын

OMG brilliant lecture except for the disgusting students who can't blow their noses, who keep sniffing and being so rude.

@Brian.001 7 жыл бұрын

Agreed about piggy students, but can't feel positively about lecture. Writng on the board while lecturing is very impersonal. Appalling, actually.

@dionlindsay2 6 жыл бұрын

Really enjoyed it. LOL re sniffing students. I think Professor Bonevac has a cold as well

@Willmolloy1 6 жыл бұрын

lol, get out of your own ass.

@chronicskeptic 5 жыл бұрын

You should try to be kind! Please, do you have to be rude? Do you have to say bad things to people? Why would you do that? At least we (leaners of philosophy) should be distict than other people in the sense that we should try to be more considerate. Remember, even the smallest evil is evil. Do not do evil.

@pmcate2 4 жыл бұрын

@@Brian.001 wtf? So almost every teacher every is impersonal?