Great lecture. I really enjoyed it. If you don't mind me asking, but what do you think about Kripke's way to solve Quine's argument about substitution in modal contexts? Here is the de dicto form of the argument. (1) 9 is the number of planets. (2) Necessarily, 9 is greater than 7. (3) Necessarily, the number of planets is greater than 7. Of course, (3) comes out as false. The same problem seems to occur if we consider de re form of the argument. Anyway, Kripke says that "9" is rigid and "the number of planets" is not rigid. So substitution fails because we can't substitute rigid terms with non-rigid terms. But doesn't Kripke already presuppose that de re modality makes sense by commiting to the idea that an expression designates the same thing in every possible world? Does his solution to Quine's argument work? I think there is something I don't understand here.
It is hard to find good youtube videos on the De re De dicto distinction. I think that this one is rely good.
Great lecture. I really enjoyed it. If you don't mind me asking, but what do you think about Kripke's way to solve Quine's argument about substitution in modal contexts? Here is the de dicto form of the argument.
(1) 9 is the number of planets.
(2) Necessarily, 9 is greater than 7.
(3) Necessarily, the number of planets is greater than 7.
Of course, (3) comes out as false. The same problem seems to occur if we consider de re form of the argument. Anyway, Kripke says that "9" is rigid and "the number of planets" is not rigid. So substitution fails because we can't substitute rigid terms with non-rigid terms. But doesn't Kripke already presuppose that de re modality makes sense by commiting to the idea that an expression designates the same thing in every possible world? Does his solution to Quine's argument work? I think there is something I don't understand here.
Quine on Quinefying...
Fight Club reference at 6:48? 😆
It seems to me a bit of J.L. Austin would also be helpful here.