Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke - Part 1

I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.

[khebrela]

I know you must be busy, professor Kaplan but we, who live on the other end of the world, need more of your videos.

[bernardin]

PROFESSOR KAPLAN DROPPING A NAMING & NECESSITY LECTURE I WANT TO HEAR YOU ALL GO FUCKING

[RomanLi-yc]

I love to learn about naming and language from philosophers, it's very helpful for software development

[addammadd]

I love Zizek’s statement in Sublime Object (and so on) “The analysis of ideology must then direct its attention to the points at which names which prima facie signify positive descriptive features already function as 'rigid designators'.”

[SlickDissident]

"If you want to change the world be willing to give someone else the credit" - not me

[aravindappat]

I appreciate that this has already been added to the philosophy of language playlist 😌

[SeanAnthony-jf]

Just imagine having another enlightenment. Full of geniuses like these guys.

[unleashedbread]

I disagree. (the video was posted 2 seconds ago)

[GynxShinx]

If there was no man named Shakespeare, but one man wrote all his works, then we would say that Shakespeare did exist, but we got his name wrong.
If there was a man named Shakespeare, but each of his works were written by a different person, then we would say that Shakespeare did exist, but we attributed some things to him wrongly.
If there was no man named Shakespeare AND each of his works were written by a different person, then we would say that Shakespeare did not exist.

[causam]

Merci, pour cette démonstration.
Je n'ai aucun diplôme, mais je lis de la philosophie et mathématique depuis 50 ans!
Comme beaucoup, je fais mes recherches seul et cela est juste car c'est le sens de ma vie.
J'ai laissé mon courriel, aléas jacta es!

[thomaslodger]

Hey Dr. Kaplan, thank you for your videos! You helped me a lot while I was writing papers for my modern philosophy class.

[SithandileMatshoba]

Sir I appreciate your work and teaches, they really hell me a lot on my Philosophy Module ❤. They also give me a better and clearer understanding.

[ihikefar]

Looking forward to your book Professor Kaplan. Cheers!

[victorcode]

Love your work. Ive always been very averse to this harder type of philosophy as a laymen, but youve made this really accessible. Cheers!

[weshull]

Damn, no joke walked out of Phil of lang final exam just to see this. You couldn’t have posted this a day ago?!?!Haha jk love this guy

[freeshipping]

Funnily enough what just happened in the rap beef has parallels here. When in "euphoria" Kendrick Lamar misnamed Joel Osment as Joel Osteen, he in the next lines gave some properties that, for most people listening, clarified it enough that he meant the one he did not name. For those that aren't in the loop, he meant Joel Osteen, the actor on the sixth sense and made a play on that. Only days later people really found out about the error. What does it implicate in regards to kripke? idk, but its fun and interesting! (someone more qualified than me: please analyse)

[danwylie-sears]

It's been a lot of years since I originally heard about N&N, but as of 8:30 in this video, I think that we use names differently in different contexts. When we talk about a fictional character, something like Searle's theory is correct: if we imagine an alternate story where the character didn't do at least the important parts of what they did in the canonical story, the one in our new story isn't really the same character. They're a different character with the same name, based on the original. So it's necessary that the character has enough of their character-defining traits. Normally, when we talk about a real person, something like Kripke's theory is a better description of what language game we're playing. We can talk about scenarios where Lincoln wasn't nominated, intending to have it be the same guy, and not have our discussion lapse into incoherence. But it's not entirely clear-cut. We play whatever game works, to say what we want to say. For a figure from distant history, we could be so wrong about them that it makes sense to say that maybe there was no Julius Caesar or no Jesus Christ, because no one satisfies enough of the traits we associate with them, but it's hard to avoid lapsing into incoherence if we try to discuss counterfactuals where they didn't do the things we know them for.

--

Yeah, after listening to the whole video, I think that a lot of our ordinary language is a lot closer to being like Jack the Ripper than Kripke is willing to acknowledge.

[bobvanluijt]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Jeff your content is f***ing gold! Thank you!

[hlyons]

Interesting how much this reminds me of studying databases and schemas! It’s all about how data relates to another piece of data!

[bm]

I don't know if any of these philosophers ever spoke about their use of "necessary" and "necessity" but I find it quite difficult to give proper names properties to then explain that it could have been different and some of the properties aren't necessary. Like for exemple, if we say that it wasn't necessary that Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States, and that it is contingent, then we flip the narrative upside down. We can say a posteriori that it could have been different but for that to happen Lincoln needed to become the 16th president of the United States. So then everything that is called "historical" is not contingent but in fact very necessary because in order for things to happen, they need to happen. I get that from a mathematical or physic point of view, we can speak from a broader scale of the possible experience, but then again, because langages are spoken they find sense in their use not in their theories.