Naming and Necessity by Saul A. Kripke

Naming and Necessity

If there is such a thing as essential reading in metaphysics or in philosophy of language, this is it.Ever since the publication of its original version, "Naming and Necessity" has had great and increasing influence. It redirected philosophical attention to neglected questions of natural and metaphysical necessity and to the connections between these and theories of reference, in particular of naming, and of identity. From a critique of the domin...

Details Naming and Necessity

TitleNaming and Necessity
Release DateApr 15th, 1982
PublisherHarvard University Press
GenrePhilosophy, Nonfiction, Humanities, Language, Linguistics, Metaphysics, Logic

Reviews Naming and Necessity

  • Manny
    As you can see if you read the other reviews, there are a lot of ways to approach Naming and Necessity, and some of them get into very technical philosophical territory. Those ways of reading it are interesting, but I think that what Kripke is saying is, in the end, quite simple, which is why the book has enjoyed such lasting popularity. He just had to express much of the argument in terms of the language of "possible worlds", which was fashionab...
  • Roy Lotz
    Let me state then what the cluster concept theory of names is. (It really is a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It’s wrong. You may suspect me of proposing another theory in its place; but I hope not, because I’m sure it’s wrong too if it is a theory.) Like many other works of philosophy (and those of other subjects, for that matter), Naming and Necessity will likely be perplexing...
  • Jon Stout
    I remember in graduate school, when Kripke visited as a young genius, I didn’t know quite what to make of him. I remember A. J. Ayer, the logical positivist and a bastion of British philosophy, expostulating from the podium, “So there, Kripke!” in the middle of a presentation, as though Kripke were the only one in the audience worthy of his vitriol. It wasn’t until now that, under the influence of philosophical friends, I got around to re...
  • L S
    It has to be said, although it's too much said, that Naming and Necessity revolutionized philosophy of language and is probably the most influential book in analytic philosophy in the past half-century. I've read Naming and Necessity four times now and am still surprised by it. Kripke's style is, particularly in relation to his peers, strikingly clear. In fact, if I have one criticism to mention offhand, it's that Kripke's style is too seductive....
  • باحث
    سول كيربكي فيلسوف تحليلي يُعتبر أحد أفضل الفلاسفة المعاصرين وكتابه هذا يعد من أهم الكتب في أخر قرنينويعد من منعشين الميتافيزيقا بعد الضربات التي تلقتهاالكتاب عبارة عن ثلاث محاضرات مفرغةوأهتم "كيربكي" بالكتاب بإضافة مقدمة وخاتمة وهوامش من أجل توض...
  • Jon Gauthier
    An extremely important book for the philosophy of language, and also very relevant in philosophy of mind. The book consists of 3 transcribed+edited lectures which Kripke apparently gave extemporaneously. This lecture format means that the book is rather quick and easy to read, and almost entirely free of (symbolic) logic (!).But beware: this is probably not a good place to dive into analytic philosophy without any background. Plenty of the existi...
  • Hossein Gholamie
    How do words (in language) refer to things (objects) in the world?What is the meaning?Is the molecular formula of water essential or possible?What is identity in objects (or individuals)?How do we refer to things that are not (non-existent)? For example: Unicorn or Sherlock Holmes.Kripke's discussions in this book are about two areas of metaphysics and epistemology and three branches in philosophy: philosophy of language and philosophy of science...
  • Erik C
    Saul Kripke’s Naming and Necessity addresses how words come to point to the things in the world that they refer to. Kripke successfully paints a more accurate picture of how this happens than the accepted view. Further, Kripke shows how we can have empirical knowledge of necessities by showing that certain identity statements are necessarily true if they are true at all. However, Kripke tries but fails to use this corrected view to launch an at...
  • Heath Allen
    For a "revolutionary" or "landmark" book, it contains surprisingly nothing of substance. I suppose it's interesting for people who already accept notions like necessity and the a priori, and for those who think that the notion of "meaning" is clear enough to lean on for any substantive philosophical work. But as far as I can tell, philosophers who accept such notions don't do so on the basis of any argument (for all their arguments depend on such...
  • Peter Heft
    While I'm not particularly an analytic guy, I do think that Kripke's lectures are extraordinarily important for understanding how names function. For an interesting time, read lecture one in conjunction with Michel Foucault's "What is an Author?"
  • Jacob Aitken
    Kripke’s thesis is that rigid designators are true, we have an intuition of them, and that they are the same in every possible world (Kripke 48). A designator is a common term that covers names and definitions (24). Specifically, names are rigid designators (48). Kripke also has a lucid discussion on what a “possible world” is (and isn’t). We imagine a situation that could have been otherwise. What properties of x would remain in that wor...
  • Jon Norimann
    I had this book recommended to me as a classic of modern philosophy. As such I am a bit disappointed. It is possible the books greatness is over my head but to me it's a short inconclusive discussion of implicit assumptions in the use of nouns. The writing is not very impressive either. All in all not a must read at all unless this is your field of specialty or you just want to read highly regarded modern philosophy.
  • Frank
    Fast read for a philosophy book and interesting ideas, particularly as regards how names work, the necessity of certain traits, and the existence of a posteriori analytic knowledge. Gets bogged down at the end with the mind body problem, but that might have just been me.Glad I read it, but probably missed a lot by not reading it for class and discussing it.
  • Erica
  • Gerardo
    Il tema di questo testo è la referenza del nome. Parte dai nomi propri per poi fare delle considerazioni sui nomi in generale. Nella teoria classica di Frege e Russell - che qui viene criticata - il nome è legato a un agglomerato di descrizioni: nel caso in cui le descrizioni più importanti (e anche in un numero considerevole) valgano per l'elemento considerato, allora quello è il referente del nome. K., però, mostra come questa teoria, anch...
  • Shozab Qasim
    Apparently this book is considered one of the most influential works of 20th century Analytical Philosophy. I suppose it would appeal to those who are interested in the metaphysics of language and in things like the theory of names. I personally am not. I am appreciative of the fact that Kripke clearly outlined the descriptive theory of reference more clearly than the theories founders, something which Kripke himself proudly stated. And I agree w...
  • Dmk
    I'm not a fan of reading primary sources so I resisted many recommendations to read this book. But after I heard Prof. Kotatko's lecture about problems of theory of Descriptions in which he praised this book I gave up my resistance.It's quie amusing, very interesting and suprisingly easy to understand (but not as easy as people tend to tell you). Although being transcription of lectures it looks like carefully written book. There's so many intere...
  • Aaron
    Kripke outlines really well the history of philosophical theories of naming and then argues for his own theory (and then talks about some interesting extensions of it). His general argument is that names are rigid designators (same in all possible worlds) while descriptions are contingent and possibly not the same in different worlds, so names cannot be synonymous with descriptions. It's easy to accept Kripke's argument solely based on how easy h...
  • Thuringiana
    This is the first classics of philosophy I have ever finished reading (after reading so many Locke, Kant etc.). The book is clear, fresh and intriguing. It is based on some lectures given by Kripke in the early 1970s. It is interesting that Kripke developed his theory in his early age, which means that young men could achieve great goals in the field of philosophy. I will write my review in Chinese to avoid mistakes.命名与必然性一书,整...
    In the wake of Kripke, analytical philosophy rediscovered or reconstructed metaphysics in the sense that we could talk of the genuine logical properties and relationships in things themselves rather than in discourses. People are cornered by his argument into the conclusion that the triviality of identity can not lie in the contingent structure of our language, but rather it's embedded in the transcendental conditions of our ways of making sense ...
  • Shane Wagoner
    Wittgenstein once spoke of a man who, despite pushing as hard as he could, could not open a door. Unbeknownst to the man, a simple pull was sufficient. In reading Naming And Necessity, it is clear that Saul Kripke stands in a similar position. A great deal of the book's brilliance lies in the astonishing simplicity of his solution to some of philosophy's most fiendish puzzles and the ease with which he lectures reveals the powerful grasp he has o...
  • Natasha
    Naming and Necessity is an unusual thought experiment in relation to metaphysical reasoning and a priori thought of the things around us. It explores the connections between our deduction and reasoning processes as to why we name objects, qualities, and even people. Kripke argues the origins of words and references that have become so ingrained into society that we only see or perceive these things in a sort of collective memory and to think of t...
  • Panda
    To be honest, this is the first philosopgical book that I've read thoroughly.
  • Vivian Rapacciuolo
    thank god for a philosophy book with no equations. kripke seems like a cool dude
  • Tyler
    What exactly do the names of things refer to? Ever since the concepts of sense and reference displaced the the use of genus and differentia, how do we determine reference, especially in the case of counterfactuals? The standard answer had been to approach reference descriptively -- if you use a word of a certain sense, its reference would be the description it fits. But in Naming and Necessity, Kripke begs to differ. And if he’s right, the noti...
  • Renato
    Este livro consiste na transcrição de três palestras de Saul Kripke, filósofo americano responsável pela retomada das discussões metafísicas na filosofia contemporânea. O livro é de leitura fácil pois trata-se da transcrição de palestras proferidas nas John Locke Lectures em 1972. O tema do livro é a discussão que envolve modalidades e metafísica. Dentre as três palestras apresentadas, eu destaco a primeira em que Kripke apresenta...
  • Kevin
    To tell you the truth, i'm not sure what all the bustle is about. It's a strong text, no doubt. I particularly relish his criticism of Russel and Frege, and their 'definite description' account of naming, where Aristotle= the man who taught Alexander, or the student of Plato. (I'm not sure what to make of his criticism of Searle's 'cluster concept' of definite description). Moreover, Kripke's recognition that there are such things as contingent a...