Who Is Saul Kripke? (Greatest Living Philosopher)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2017
- An explanation of the life and works of Saul Kripke, the Prodigy Logician, Master of Modal Language, and Greatest Living Philosopher, including Kripke Semantics, Naming and Necessity, Kripkenstein and more!
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Rest In Peace🙏
Rip Saul Kripke..
Heh, I was actually at a lecture of his last year, and got my picture taken with Kripke!
+CosmoShidan Awesome!
What was it like to meet with him?
Better call Saul
🤣🤣🤣
Is he accessible to us though?
@@tykjpelk Not any longer sadly
Well, I guess it's time to change the title
The appraisal, the recognition, the actual celebration of 'greatness' which ideally (or should) follows a or the genuine 'meaning' of 'great' - ironically😐 falls right in place so very 'exactly' with
Kripke and this work with Modal logic - 'straight-away - and in the first place ! ! ! Beautiful,
I Love it 💘
Mankind's number-one problem, is NOT all of the garbage we are all buried each and every day, -
It is and 'has-always-been' - very simply the enumerable pitfalls of COMMUNICATION ! ! !
By-and-for this 'reason' - we all are even fatally crippled (not even handicapped) even 'before we actually begin ! ! !
WHY do Kripke and Wittgenstein ... make the most incredibly perfect sense - a common and most obvious simple 'sense', - that we all seem to continuously struggle with ?
Thankfully Iv'e been granted the exemption of 🤪.
I´ve heard someone say that kripke has a body of work he doesn´t show to anyone but his friends.
That someone was one of his friends?
+Pedro de Sá I have also heard this claim. I would not be surprised if a body of unpublished work comes out after his death.
I don't think he has friends
Interesting. I might look at Kripkean Semantics. I like Saussure, Pierce, sometimes even Langer, Levi-Strauss and even Wittgenstein in semantics.
Kripke's idea that you can pick out a person across multiple worlds sounds analogous to Frege's sense theory; having multiple senses be part of the same referent
I am trying to understand the implications of this.
Essentially, is this saying: Suppose there is some mathematical model, which is consistent (venus).
Since it's consistent, we can be confident that whatever this mathematical model represents in the real world, it exists (venus).
However, since we don't necessarily know what the mathematical model is describing (evening star/morning star), we can't definitively pin down what it is actually describing (morning star/evening star) until we see some empirical evidence which reconciles with the mathematical model (venus)?
Rest in Necessity.
Took me a while to get to this, but a good way to start.
Always more impressed by Godel, but Kripke is a genius among us.
+JXZX1 Godel was one of the greatest logicians of all time, Kripke is most interesting since he is the most recent huge logical thinker so has built on the works of those from the past.
Among us
Rip
What about Wilfrid Sellars?
Rip uncle k
Not anymore. RIP. Sad that I never heard him teach in person.
he came up with formulas of algebra independently when he was 7
Not much familiar with analytical philosophy. I am guessing analytic philosophy requires mathematics unlike continental
this is interesting.
+Meta tron Thanks!
William lane craig ❤
Rest In Peace kripke
Wait... he may have taught himself Ancient Hebrew the same way that I taught myself Japanese when I wad 8. But that doesn't mean he learned it - especially if you consider that his vocabulary was not long in his own native language at that age. The same applies to Shakespeare - did he really get all the sexual innuendos at an early age? What about Descartes? Understanding Descartes is more than a matter of geniality, you must have read a gigantic pile of philosophy books by philosophers that preceded him; otherwise, you will see only a dim light. So, that story lacks important clarification
That's the kind of story that appeals to an audience that thinks understanding is divorced from empirical intuition. Knowledge rests on the back of experience.
Could you say Garbáge in French?
With regard to Kripke's philosophy of language, I'm not convinced that there are necessary a posteriori propositions. Why couldn't there be a possible world in which the Morning Star is in fact different than the Evening Star? I understand that "that astronomical object I see in the morning" has the same referent as "that astronomical object I see in the evening" in the actual world. But I see no reason why these distinct senses could not have different referents in another possible world.
+Benjamin Przybocki Kripke says that they are "rigid designators" which pick out the same thing in all possible worlds. More on this later, but for now check out putnam's twin earth thought experiment for the basic intuition.
Carneades.org I'm not convinced by the Twin Earth thought experiment. On both planets (or in both worlds), water means "that clear, liquidy substance (that I see, for example, when I look into the ocean)." The only thing that changes between the planets is the referent of this term (which is either H2O or XYZ).
To see why, let me propose another thought experiment. This time, we are in the present day on this planet. Having already discovered that water is H2O, some suggest that the term water is synonymous with the term H2O (i.e., water is a rigid designator of H2O). But it turns out (in this hypothetical), just as not all air is nitrogen, not all water is H2O. Different bodies of water are tested, and some of them are composed of XYZ rather than H2O. It would be absurd to suggest that XYZ is not water, because men have used the term water to describe both H2O and XYZ for centuries, and it was only recently that scientists mistakenly thought all water is H2O. Since this hypothetical is conceivable, water is not a rigid designator of H2O. In fact, in this hypothetical water is not a rigid designator of the union of H2O and XYZ, because the argument can be repeated with a third substance. Water can only be taken to mean "that clear, liquidy substance."
It follows that "Water is H2O" is not necessarily true.
Edit: It may be objected that my thought experiment begs the question by assuming that our current understanding of water is wrong. In fact, I am only using that hypothetical to show that the referent of the term water could be different in other possible worlds. In other words, that what we mean by water is not based on the substance's chemical formula, but on our mind's conception of the substance and our acquaintance with the essential properties thereof.
There is only one possible world.
000
Kripke!?! Ha, The Amazing Atheist is clearly the world's greatest living philosopher.
+Robbie Desiato Haha, philosopher perhaps in the broader sense, but less in the academic one. Though there is certainly a place in philosophical tradition for popularizers as well as those with new ideas.
He can't be the greatest living philosopher because i am. He can't claim to have answered everything in metaphysics.
*cough cough* Kit Fine *cough cough*
To describe Saul Kripke as the "greatest living philosopher" does not bode well for philosophy. When you actually look at the life's work of Kripke, he didn't exactly do a whole lot of very interesting things. At least, no more or less interesting than any other average mathematician or scientist. I've even listened to some of his live lectures, and the guy fundamentally sucks at communicating ideas. So the fact that he is given such high praise only leaves me wondering what on earth all those other thousands of PhD philosophers are doing with their lives. It's kind of insulting to the entire field of philosophy to elevate such a mediocre career, especially given so many of his terrible ideas. In particular, the notion of "necessary a-prosteriori" is one of the most ludicrous things to ever come out of modern philosophy.
Einstein was bad at speaking too.
@@MarchingNight Einstein fundamentally transformed the way we think about space and time. Kripke tried to argue that definitions govern reality.
Go back to meming about religion.
Kripke came up with some clever solutions, but personally, I can't find it influential as Kant has been for me. I still consider Wittgenstein and Quine as the main cornerstone that all analytic philosophy should turn to.
Ok boomer
Unfortunately, transworld identification requires real essences.
Kripke is not a philosopher n
Greatest philosopher? Are you sh€tting us?
No, its true, call a better one
I don't think we can really separate his work from insanity, logic is meant to break down much earlier than Kripke demonstrated it to....so that is some kind of genius at least.
Rip