Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke - Part 1

👌👌🙏🙏

So what about the name "florida man"? This name fits hundreds if not thousands of descriptors refers to a specific person although fictional yet the descriptors themselves are properties of just as many individual real people. We know all that a priori yet we collectively decided to attribute all of those descriptors to the fictional character "florida man" rather than the individuals whom these descriptors actually belong to.

Also I take very serious issue with proper names excluding fictional characters.
It doesn't matter whether Harry potter exists or not or has done any of those things and whether we are aware of that. Harry Potter is still a wizard and killed voldemort and there is no one who disputes that or associates that name with something else.

And lastly what if Abraham Lincoln was named literally anything else? Does that mean he ceases to be the same man?

I believe adding this much rigidity to proper names neither does them justice nor describes their purpose or function properly.

I found some interesting things with Kripke's critic of thesis #4

The thesis says "if no object satisfies these characteristics, then the name has no referent". But the counterargument refers adresses only one important description that turns out to not be true, but doesn't encompass the various other charachteristics a proper name can have (there are way many more characteristic's to Gordel than just beign the discoverer of a certain theorem). Am i not understanding the argument well? Is it just saying a name could have all it's cluster of characteristics purgated from it and we would still refer to that person when we mention their name? this is how i'm understanding it. Am i missing something?

A huge assumption in this is that the world is non-deterministic, a deterministic perspective would refute the idea that anything is "possible". I am basically arguing against the possible world position, which indirectly refutes the idea that "abraham lincon is the 1860 election winner" not being a necessary predicament.

Correct me if i'm wrong but does Professor Kaplan not have any videos on idealism? Seems like he has cover all of its neighboring philosophies

Where is Part 2?

What about the possible world where Abraham Lincoln was named Noah Lincoln? What then?

Every time I listen to your video I lose a bunch of time trying to understand where is your right arm, what the hell it is that you are writting on and where is the camera lol

A 22 mile long bad joke!

What a load of rubbish.

Is this naming and necessity really just about persons and what kind of associations we have when who talk about them? If so, pretty much ado about n'thing.

can anyone recommend any good philosophy of language books for beginners?

... is he writing backwards?

I must admit.... I don't understand it.... not because I don't comprehend the ideas presented but that there is actually a branch of philosophy that deals with, debates and analysis such ideas, like naming..... it all seems so obvious but the philosophers are making it into this overly complex explanation / exploration of the concepts... I can see a few drunks in a park having such discussions, not someone who studied for years at most prestigious University.... LOL... no offense intended, not trying to dismiss all these professors / philosophers.... just making a subjective statement....

Need next aprt

Nah cuh

Wow…. no wonder the world is fuk’d up…this passes as something to think about…

I’ve given you some of my time and to be charitable to you, you are in the wrong arena. You aren’t charismatic and you prolong your explanations with fluff and your timing is off and you take too much time to get to the point and by that time I’m lost.

This is not your forte.

You could do much better with some editing and coaching, you are far behind in this game

Objects and classes like in programming

What is a woman ?

Jack the Ripper cannot be a proper name. It’s an imaginary name. Btw Jack the Ripper was the prince of wales.

lol 'girdle'... I think he means Gödel.

Damn if he was here now, he could solve climate change......by naming it differently.....

One thing confuses me and leaves me unable to distinguish between the Jack the ripper case and Abraham Lincoln case. What differenciates an object having a particular rigid designator and any other property of the object. It seems to me that we can only say that every object has a rigid designator, but we cannot claim to be using it when referring to the object. It seems unknowable what the actually rigid designator for an object is. Thus, in practical circumstances Searle's theory is correct as Kripke states in the case of Jack the ripper, but in theory it collapses when we have access to the rigid designator of the referred object.

Fascinating

I don't understand how "Abraham Lincoln" necessarily describes a person, but his other unique properties don't. The person named Abraham Lincoln in this world could have been given some other name in a different world. Then it's not necessarily true that he is named Abraham Lincoln, so that can't be his proper name.

Donald Trump associated properties are adulterer, criminal, fraudster, cheater, rapist, narcissist, etc.

plus i also have this problem with philosophers till talking about states of affairs of the world edging around the law of contradiction ( aka necessary analytic a priori ) that can all be discarded easily when you show there being no real necessity ( not logical necessity but necessity in terms of stats of affairs of the world ) in law of contradiction.

40 something white dudes. And Obama If ya wanna get descriptive.

Harry Potter does not kill Voldemort. It is the 'Elder Wand' that kills Voldemort to protect Harry Potter, it's true "owner".

Can you explain the meaning of concepts and mental representation in philosophy with simple examples?

You just made me want to read Naming and Necessity.

It would be great to hear a lecture on Ludwig Wittgenstein, if you are going down this road.

Post the actual lecture instead of giving your simplified interpretation of it. Is it possible?

I may be missing something here, but why is this significant? I guess that question is synonymous with why anyone accepted searl’s first theory to begin with? This all just seems so obvious. (I promise I’m not trying to simply sound smart)

20th century anglosaxon "philosophy" is just repeating scholastic philosophy over and over but with (supposedly) modern logic tools. Of course, they didn't advance a single milimeter

The banner: “You’re theory is correct” at the two minute mark is wrong. The possessive adjective is “your” as in “your theory”, not “you’re theory”.

Ironic!

But, what happens when the winner of the 2020 election was not the winner of the 2020 election?

geez Searle is a git, right? If you want to find out who a proper name refers to, ask a (good) cop. All the cop has to do is find a witness or a snitch.

(Fits with causal theory I will say. ;-)

Quite interesting!

If something has already happened doesn't that make the name associated with the action necessarily have the property of the action that happened? And while things could have gone differently, I am not sure how the fact that an existing person has done an action makes it not necessarily true. Unless of course, we believe that a statement has to be true at any given time and not just when examined in order to be considered necessarily true. Can anyone explain?

Philosophy is a huge waste of time like this video.

So, how is Kripke's core point difference to Bertrand Russell's when he pointed out the meaninglessness of saying that, "'the present king of France is bald'? In both cases we're talking about a designator without a referent, are we not?

Also, didn't they go through all this with the Logical Positivists and Wittgenstein? Didn't Karl Popper try to make similar points in the famous "Wittgenstein's Poker" incident, only to find that old Ludwig was way ahead of him.

Is it just that the news hadn't reached Princeton (to borrow from Tom Lehrer)? Or else what am I missing?

The only bad thing about watching Prof. Kaplan videos is that I am really dumb. There are people in the world that are just WAAAYYY smarter than I'll ever be.

Looking forward to part 2 and the book.