Traditional descriptivism and Kripkean causalism are standardly interpreted as rival theories on a single topic. I argue that there is no such shared topic, i.e. that there is no question that they can be interpreted as giving rival answers to. The only way to make sense of the commitment to epistemic transparency that characterizes traditional descriptivism is to interpret Russell and Frege as proposing rival accounts of how to characterize a subject’s beliefs about what names refer to
I discuss K\ufcnne's theory of indexicals and Kripke's criticism, and I find what is in common betwe...
Les arguments de Kripke en faveur d'une théorie de la référence directe des noms propres ne suffisen...
In “Naming and Necessity” Saul Kripke describes some cases which, he claims, provide counterexamples...
Traditional descriptivism and Kripkean causalism are standardly interpreted as rival theories on a s...
A popular idea is that Kripke’s three arguments from “Naming and Necessity” (1973) formulate the str...
The literature on Kripke’s A Puzzle About Belief has delivered convincing answers to the problem rai...
The major thesis of this Dissertation is that (1) causal and historical explanation theories are...
In his influential paper 'Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference', Kripke defends Russell's theo...
It is generally thought that Searle's cluster theory of the sense of a proper name was soundly refut...
Abstract: This paper has two purposes: the first is to critically examine Kripke’s well-known argume...
Kripke's epistemic argument against descriptivism is reconstructed as follows. Premise 1: if de...
In Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke argues for an extreme form of meaning sc...
incorrectly predict necessary truths where there are only contingent ones. Kripke’s principal target...
In the Addenda to Naming and Necessity (1980), Kripke famously argues that it is false that there co...
Philosophers have been referring to the “Kripke–Putnam ” theory of natural-kind terms for over 30 ye...
I discuss K\ufcnne's theory of indexicals and Kripke's criticism, and I find what is in common betwe...
Les arguments de Kripke en faveur d'une théorie de la référence directe des noms propres ne suffisen...
In “Naming and Necessity” Saul Kripke describes some cases which, he claims, provide counterexamples...
Traditional descriptivism and Kripkean causalism are standardly interpreted as rival theories on a s...
A popular idea is that Kripke’s three arguments from “Naming and Necessity” (1973) formulate the str...
The literature on Kripke’s A Puzzle About Belief has delivered convincing answers to the problem rai...
The major thesis of this Dissertation is that (1) causal and historical explanation theories are...
In his influential paper 'Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference', Kripke defends Russell's theo...
It is generally thought that Searle's cluster theory of the sense of a proper name was soundly refut...
Abstract: This paper has two purposes: the first is to critically examine Kripke’s well-known argume...
Kripke's epistemic argument against descriptivism is reconstructed as follows. Premise 1: if de...
In Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language, Saul Kripke argues for an extreme form of meaning sc...
incorrectly predict necessary truths where there are only contingent ones. Kripke’s principal target...
In the Addenda to Naming and Necessity (1980), Kripke famously argues that it is false that there co...
Philosophers have been referring to the “Kripke–Putnam ” theory of natural-kind terms for over 30 ye...
I discuss K\ufcnne's theory of indexicals and Kripke's criticism, and I find what is in common betwe...
Les arguments de Kripke en faveur d'une théorie de la référence directe des noms propres ne suffisen...
In “Naming and Necessity” Saul Kripke describes some cases which, he claims, provide counterexamples...