Saul Kripke - Wikipedia





	
	

	
	

	Saul Kripke

	
		From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

		

		

		
		

		Jump to navigation
		Jump to search
			Saul Kripke

	
	Born	 (1940-11-13) November 13, 1940 (age 80)
Bay Shore, New York, U.S.

	Education	Harvard University (B.A., 1962)
	Awards	Rolf Schock Prizes in Logic and Philosophy (2001)
	
	Era	Contemporary philosophy
	Region	Western philosophy
	School	Analytic
	Institutions	Princeton University
CUNY Graduate Center
	Main interests
	Logic (particularly modal)
Philosophy of language
Metaphysics
Set theory
Epistemology
Philosophy of mind
History of analytic philosophy
	Notable ideas
	
List

	
Kripke–Platek set theory
Work on theory of reference (causal theory of reference, causal-historical theory of reference,[1] direct reference theory, criticism of the Frege–Russell view)
Admissible ordinal
Kripke structure
Rigid vs. flaccid designator
A posteriori necessity
The possibility of analytic a posteriori judgments[2][3]
Semantic theory of truth (Kripke's theory)
Non-analytic, a posteriori necessary truths[4]
Contingent a priori[5]
Kripke semantics
Disquotational principle
Accessibility relation
Rule-following paradox (Kripkenstein)
Humphrey objection





	
Influences

	Marcus · Frege · Curry · Lewis · Russell · Tarski · Wittgenstein · Dummett · Quine · Turing





	
Influenced

	Burgess · Boghossian · Burge · Chalmers · Devitt · Evans · Field · Kaplan · Putnam · Salmon · Shoemaker · Soames · Weinstein · Yablo





	



Saul Aaron Kripke (/ˈkrɪpki/; born November 13, 1940) is an American philosopher and logician in the analytic tradition. He is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and emeritus professor at Princeton University. Since the 1960s, Kripke has been a central figure in a number of fields related to mathematical logic, modal logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, and recursion theory. Much of his work remains unpublished or exists only as tape recordings and privately circulated manuscripts.

Kripke has made influential and original contributions to logic, especially modal logic. His principal contribution is a semantics for modal logic involving possible worlds, now called Kripke semantics.[6] He received the 2001 Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy.

Kripke is also partly responsible for the revival of metaphysics after the decline of logical positivism, claiming necessity is a metaphysical notion distinct from the epistemic notion of a priori, and that there are necessary truths that are known a posteriori, such as that water is H2O. A 1970 Princeton lecture series, published in book form in 1980 as Naming and Necessity, is considered one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. It introduces the concept of names as rigid designators, true in every possible world, as contrasted with descriptions. It also contains Kripke's causal theory of reference, disputing the descriptivist theory found in Gottlob Frege's concept of sense and Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions.

Kripke also gave an original reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein, known as "Kripkenstein", in his Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. The book contains his rule-following argument, a paradox for skepticism about meaning.


Contents


	1 Life and career
	2 Work
	2.1 Modal logic
	2.1.1 Canonical models
	2.1.2 Carlson models



	2.2 Intuitionistic logic
	2.3 Naming and Necessity
	2.3.1 "A Puzzle about Belief"



	2.4 Wittgenstein
	2.5 Truth



	3 Religious views
	4 Saul Kripke Center
	5 Awards and recognitions
	6 Works
	7 See also
	8 References
	9 Further reading
	10 External links





Life and career[edit]

Saul Kripke is the oldest of three children born to Dorothy K. Kripke and Rabbi Myer S. Kripke.[7] His father was the leader of Beth El Synagogue, the only Conservative congregation in Omaha, Nebraska; his mother wrote educational Jewish books for children. Saul and his two sisters, Madeline and Netta, attended Dundee Grade School and Omaha Central High School. Kripke was labeled a prodigy, teaching himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, reading Shakespeare's complete works by nine, and mastering the works of Descartes and complex mathematical problems before finishing elementary school.[8][9] He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at 17, and had it published a year later. After graduating from high school in 1958, Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude in 1962 with a bachelor's degree in mathematics. During his sophomore year at Harvard, he taught a graduate-level logic course at nearby MIT.[10] Upon graduation he received a Fulbright Fellowship, and in 1963 was appointed to the Society of Fellows. Kripke later said, "I wish I could have skipped college. I got to know some interesting people but I can't say I learned anything. I probably would have learned it all anyway just reading on my own."[11]

After briefly teaching at Harvard, in 1968 Kripke moved to Rockefeller University in New York City, where he taught until 1976. In 1978 he took a chaired professorship at Princeton University.[12] In 1988 he received the university's Behrman Award for distinguished achievement in the humanities. In 2002 Kripke began teaching at the CUNY Graduate Center, and in 2003 he was appointed a distinguished professor of philosophy there.

Kripke has received honorary degrees from the University of Nebraska, Omaha (1977), Johns Hopkins University (1997), University of Haifa, Israel (1998), and the University of Pennsylvania (2005). He is a member of the American Philosophical Society and an elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and in 1985 was a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.[13] He won the Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy in 2001.[14]

Kripke was married to philosopher Margaret Gilbert. He is the second cousin once removed of television writer, director, and producer Eric Kripke.


Work[edit]

  
Example Kripke model for linear temporal logic, a particular modal logic



Kripke's contributions to philosophy include:


	Kripke semantics for modal and related logics, published in several essays beginning in his teens.
	His 1970 Princeton lectures Naming and Necessity (published in 1972 and 1980), which significantly restructured philosophy of language.
	His interpretation of Wittgenstein.
	His theory of truth.


He has also contributed to recursion theory (see admissible ordinal and Kripke–Platek set theory).


Modal logic[edit]

Two of Kripke's earlier works, "A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic" (1959) and "Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic" (1963), the former written when he was a teenager, were on modal logic. The most familiar logics in the modal family are constructed from a weak logic called K, named after Kripke. Kripke introduced the now-standard Kripke semantics (also known as relational semantics or frame semantics) for modal logics. Kripke semantics is a formal semantics for non-classical logic systems. It was first made for modal logics, and later adapted to intuitionistic logic and other non-classical systems. The discovery of Kripke semantics was a breakthrough in the making of non-classical logics, because the model theory of such logics was absent before Kripke.

A Kripke frame or modal frame is a pair 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R\rangle }
  
, where W is a non-empty set, and R is a binary relation on W. Elements of W are called nodes or worlds, and R is known as the accessibility relation.  Depending on the properties of the accessibility relation (transitivity, reflexivity, etc.), the corresponding frame is described, by extension, as being transitive, reflexive, etc.

A Kripke model is a triple 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ,
        ⊩
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R,\Vdash \rangle }
  
, where 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R\rangle }
  
 is a Kripke frame, and 
  
    
      
        ⊩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Vdash }
  
 is a relation between nodes of W and modal formulas, such that:


	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        ¬
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \neg A}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊮
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\nVdash A}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        →
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A\to B}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊮
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\nVdash A}
  
 or 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash B}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        ◻
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \Box A}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        ∀
        u
        
        (
        w
        
        R
        
        u
      
    
    {\displaystyle \forall u\,(w\;R\;u}
  
 implies 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        A
        )
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash A)}
  
.


We read 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A}
  
 as "w satisfies A", "A is satisfied in w", or "w forces A". The relation 
  
    
      
        ⊩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Vdash }
  
 is called the satisfaction relation, evaluation, or forcing relation. The satisfaction relation is uniquely determined by its value on propositional variables.

A formula A is valid in:


	a model 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ,
        ⊩
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R,\Vdash \rangle }
  
, if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A}
  
 for all w ∈ W,
	a frame 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R\rangle }
  
, if it is valid in 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ,
        ⊩
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R,\Vdash \rangle }
  
 for all possible choices of 
  
    
      
        ⊩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Vdash }
  
,
	a class C of frames or models, if it is valid in every member of C.


We define Thm(C) to be the set of all formulas that are valid in C. Conversely, if X is a set of formulas, let Mod(X) be the class of all frames which validate every formula from X.

A modal logic (i.e., a set of formulas) L is sound with respect to a class of frames C, if L ⊆ Thm(C). L is complete with respect to C if L ⊇ Thm(C).

Semantics is useful for investigating a logic (i.e., a derivation system) only if the semantical entailment relation reflects its syntactical counterpart, the consequence relation (derivability). It is vital to know which modal logics are sound and complete with respect to a class of Kripke frames, and for them, to determine which class it is.

For any class C of Kripke frames, Thm(C) is a normal modal logic (in particular, theorems of the minimal normal modal logic, K, are valid in every Kripke model). However, the converse does not hold generally. There are Kripke incomplete normal modal logics, which is unproblematic, because most of the modal systems studied are complete of classes of frames described by simple conditions.

A normal modal logic L corresponds to a class of frames C, if C = Mod(L). In other words, C is the largest class of frames such that L is sound wrt C. It follows that L is Kripke complete if and only if it is complete of its corresponding class.

Consider the schema T : 
  
    
      
        ◻
        A
        →
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Box A\to A}
  
. T is valid in any reflexive frame 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R\rangle }
  
: if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        ◻
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \Box A}
  
, then 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A}
  
 since w R w. On the other hand, a frame which validates T has to be reflexive: fix w ∈ W, and define satisfaction of a propositional variable p as follows: 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash p}
  
 if and only if w R u. Then 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        ◻
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \Box p}
  
, thus 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash p}
  
 by T, which means w R w using the definition of 
  
    
      
        ⊩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Vdash }
  
. T corresponds to the class of reflexive Kripke frames.

It is often much easier to characterize the corresponding class of L than to prove its completeness, thus correspondence serves as a guide to completeness proofs. Correspondence is also used to show incompleteness of modal logics: suppose L1 ⊆ L2 are normal modal logics that correspond to the same class of frames, but L1 does not prove all theorems of L2. Then L1 is Kripke incomplete. For example, the schema 
  
    
      
        ◻
        (
        A
        ≡
        ◻
        A
        )
        →
        ◻
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Box (A\equiv \Box A)\to \Box A}
  
 generates an incomplete logic, as it corresponds to the same class of frames as GL (viz. transitive and converse well-founded frames), but does not prove the GL-tautology 
  
    
      
        ◻
        A
        →
        ◻
        ◻
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Box A\to \Box \Box A}
  
.


Canonical models[edit]

For any normal modal logic L, a Kripke model (called the canonical model) can be constructed, which validates precisely the theorems of L, by an adaptation of the standard technique of using maximal consistent sets as models. Canonical Kripke models play a role similar to the Lindenbaum–Tarski algebra construction in algebraic semantics.

A set of formulas is L-consistent if no contradiction can be derived from them using the axioms of L, and modus ponens. A maximal L-consistent set (an L-MCS for short) is an L-consistent set which has no proper L-consistent superset.

The canonical model of L is a Kripke model 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ,
        ⊩
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R,\Vdash \rangle }
  
, where W is the set of all L-MCS, and the relations R and 
  
    
      
        ⊩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Vdash }
  
 are as follows:


	
  
    
      
        X
        
        R
        
        Y
      
    
    {\displaystyle X\;R\;Y}
  
 if and only if for every formula 
  
    
      
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle A}
  
, if 
  
    
      
        ◻
        A
        ∈
        X
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Box A\in X}
  
 then 
  
    
      
        A
        ∈
        Y
      
    
    {\displaystyle A\in Y}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        X
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle X\Vdash A}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        A
        ∈
        X
      
    
    {\displaystyle A\in X}
  
.


The canonical model is a model of L, as every L-MCS contains all theorems of L. By Zorn's lemma, each L-consistent set is contained in an L-MCS, in particular every formula unprovable in L has a counterexample in the canonical model.

The main application of canonical models are completeness proofs. Properties of the canonical model of K immediately imply completeness of K with respect to the class of all Kripke frames. This argument does not work for arbitrary L, because there is no guarantee that the underlying frame of the canonical model satisfies the frame conditions of L.

We say that a formula or a set X of formulas is canonical with respect to a property P of Kripke frames, if


	X is valid in every frame which satisfies P,
	for any normal modal logic L which contains X, the underlying frame of the canonical model of L satisfies P.


A union of canonical sets of formulas is itself canonical. It follows from the preceding discussion that any logic axiomatized by a canonical set of formulas is Kripke complete, and compact.

The axioms T, 4, D, B, 5, H, G (and thus any combination of them) are canonical. GL and Grz are not canonical, because they are not compact. The axiom M by itself is not canonical (Goldblatt, 1991), but the combined logic S4.1 (in fact, even K4.1) is canonical.

In general, it is undecidable whether a given axiom is canonical. We know a nice sufficient condition: H. Sahlqvist identified a broad class of formulas (now called Sahlqvist formulas) such that:


	a Sahlqvist formula is canonical,
	the class of frames corresponding to a Sahlqvist formula is first-order definable,
	there is an algorithm which computes the corresponding frame condition to a given Sahlqvist formula.


This is a powerful criterion: for example, all axioms listed above as canonical are (equivalent to) Sahlqvist formulas. A logic has the finite model property (FMP) if it is complete with respect to a class of finite frames. An application of this notion is the decidability question: it follows from Post's theorem that a recursively axiomatized modal logic L which has FMP is decidable, provided it is decidable whether a given finite frame is a model of L. In particular, every finitely axiomatizable logic with FMP is decidable.

There are various methods for establishing FMP for a given logic. Refinements and extensions of the canonical model construction often work, using tools such as filtration or unravelling. As another possibility, completeness proofs based on cut-free sequent calculi usually produce finite models directly.

Most of the modal systems used in practice (including all listed above) have FMP.

In some cases, we can use FMP to prove Kripke completeness of a logic: every normal modal logic is complete wrt a class of modal algebras, and a finite modal algebra can be transformed into a Kripke frame. As an example, Robert Bull proved using this method that every normal extension of S4.3 has FMP, and is Kripke complete.

Kripke semantics has a straightforward generalization to logics with more than one modality. A Kripke frame for a language with

  
    
      
        {
        
          ◻
          
            i
          
        
        ∣
        
        i
        ∈
        I
        }
      
    
    {\displaystyle \{\Box _{i}\mid \,i\in I\}}
  
 as the set of its necessity operators consists of a non-empty set W equipped with binary relations Ri for each i ∈ I. The definition of a satisfaction relation is modified as follows:


	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        
          ◻
          
            i
          
        
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \Box _{i}A}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        ∀
        u
        
        (
        w
        
        
          R
          
            i
          
        
        
        u
        ⇒
        u
        ⊩
        A
        )
        .
      
    
    {\displaystyle \forall u\,(w\;R_{i}\;u\Rightarrow u\Vdash A).}
  



Carlson models[edit]

A simplified semantics, discovered by Tim Carlson, is often used for polymodal provability logics. A Carlson model is a structure 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        R
        ,
        {
        
          D
          
            i
          
        
        
          }
          
            i
            ∈
            I
          
        
        ,
        ⊩
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,R,\{D_{i}\}_{i\in I},\Vdash \rangle }
  
 with a single accessibility relation R, and subsets Di ⊆ W for each modality. Satisfaction is defined as:


	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        
          ◻
          
            i
          
        
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \Box _{i}A}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        ∀
        u
        ∈
        
          D
          
            i
          
        
        
        (
        w
        
        R
        
        u
        ⇒
        u
        ⊩
        A
        )
        .
      
    
    {\displaystyle \forall u\in D_{i}\,(w\;R\;u\Rightarrow u\Vdash A).}
  



Carlson models are easier to visualize and to work with than usual polymodal Kripke models; there are, however, Kripke complete polymodal logics which are Carlson incomplete.

In Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic, published in 1963, Kripke responded to a difficulty with classical quantification theory. The motivation for the world-relative approach was to represent the possibility that objects in one world may fail to exist in another. If standard quantifier rules are used, however, every term must refer to something that exists in all the possible worlds. This seems incompatible with our ordinary practice of using terms to refer to things that exist contingently.

Kripke's response to this difficulty was to eliminate terms. He gave an example of a system that uses the world-relative interpretation and preserves the classical rules. However, the costs are severe. First, his language is artificially impoverished, and second, the rules for the propositional modal logic must be weakened.

Kripke's possible worlds theory has been used by narratologists (beginning with Pavel and Dolezel) to understand "reader's manipulation of alternative plot developments, or the characters' planned or fantasized alternative action series." This application has become especially useful in the analysis of hyperfiction.[15]


Intuitionistic logic[edit]

Kripke semantics for intuitionistic logic follows the same principles as the semantics of modal logic, but uses a different definition of satisfaction.

An intuitionistic Kripke model is a triple

  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        ≤
        ,
        ⊩
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,\leq ,\Vdash \rangle }
  
, where 
  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        ≤
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,\leq \rangle }
  
 is a partially ordered Kripke frame, and 
  
    
      
        ⊩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \Vdash }
  
 satisfies the following conditions:


	if p is a propositional variable, 
  
    
      
        w
        ≤
        u
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\leq u}
  
, and 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash p}
  
, then 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash p}
  
 (persistency condition),
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        ∧
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A\land B}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A}
  
 and 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash B}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        ∨
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A\lor B}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A}
  
 or 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash B}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        →
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A\to B}
  
 if and only if for all 
  
    
      
        u
        ≥
        w
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\geq w}
  
, 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        A
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash A}
  
 implies 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        B
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash B}
  
,
	not 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        ⊥
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \bot }
  
.


Intuitionistic logic is sound and complete with respect to its Kripke semantics, and it has the Finite Model Property.

Intuitionistic first-order logic

Let L be a first-order language. A Kripke model of L is a triple

  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        ≤
        ,
        {
        
          M
          
            w
          
        
        
          }
          
            w
            ∈
            W
          
        
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,\leq ,\{M_{w}\}_{w\in W}\rangle }
  
, where

  
    
      
        ⟨
        W
        ,
        ≤
        ⟩
      
    
    {\displaystyle \langle W,\leq \rangle }
  
 is an intuitionistic Kripke frame, Mw is a
(classical) L-structure for each node w ∈ W, and the following compatibility conditions hold whenever u ≤ v:


	the domain of Mu is included in the domain of Mv,
	realizations of function symbols in Mu and Mv agree on elements of Mu,
	for each n-ary predicate P and elements a1,...,an ∈ Mu: if P(a1,...,an) holds in Mu, then it holds in Mv.


Given an evaluation e of variables by elements of Mw, we define the satisfaction relation 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A[e]}
  
:


	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        P
        (
        
          t
          
            1
          
        
        ,
        …
        ,
        
          t
          
            n
          
        
        )
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash P(t_{1},\dots ,t_{n})[e]}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        P
        (
        
          t
          
            1
          
        
        [
        e
        ]
        ,
        …
        ,
        
          t
          
            n
          
        
        [
        e
        ]
        )
      
    
    {\displaystyle P(t_{1}[e],\dots ,t_{n}[e])}
  
 holds in Mw,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        (
        A
        ∧
        B
        )
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash (A\land B)[e]}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A[e]}
  
 and 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        B
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash B[e]}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        (
        A
        ∨
        B
        )
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash (A\lor B)[e]}
  
 if and only if 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A[e]}
  
 or 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        B
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash B[e]}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        (
        A
        →
        B
        )
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash (A\to B)[e]}
  
 if and only if for all 
  
    
      
        u
        ≥
        w
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\geq w}
  
, 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        A
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash A[e]}
  
 implies 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        B
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash B[e]}
  
,
	not 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        ⊥
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash \bot [e]}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        (
        ∃
        x
        
        A
        )
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash (\exists x\,A)[e]}
  
 if and only if there exists an 
  
    
      
        a
        ∈
        
          M
          
            w
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle a\in M_{w}}
  
 such that 
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        A
        [
        e
        (
        x
        →
        a
        )
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash A[e(x\to a)]}
  
,
	
  
    
      
        w
        ⊩
        (
        ∀
        x
        
        A
        )
        [
        e
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle w\Vdash (\forall x\,A)[e]}
  
 if and only if for every 
  
    
      
        u
        ≥
        w
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\geq w}
  
 and every 
  
    
      
        a
        ∈
        
          M
          
            u
          
        
      
    
    {\displaystyle a\in M_{u}}
  
, 
  
    
      
        u
        ⊩
        A
        [
        e
        (
        x
        →
        a
        )
        ]
      
    
    {\displaystyle u\Vdash A[e(x\to a)]}
  
.


Here e(x→a) is the evaluation which gives x the value a, and otherwise agrees with e.


Naming and Necessity[edit]

Main article: Naming and Necessity

  
Cover of Naming and Necessity



The three lectures that form Naming and Necessity constitute an attack on descriptivist theory of names. Kripke attributes variants of descriptivist theories to Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and John Searle, among others. According to descriptivist theories, proper names either are synonymous with descriptions, or have their reference determined by virtue of the name's being associated with a description or cluster of descriptions that an object uniquely satisfies. Kripke rejects both these kinds of descriptivism. He gives several examples purporting to render descriptivism implausible as a theory of how names get their references determined (e.g., surely Aristotle could have died at age two and so not satisfied any of the descriptions we associate with his name, but it would seem wrong to deny that he was still Aristotle).

As an alternative, Kripke outlined a causal theory of reference, according to which a name refers to an object by virtue of a causal connection with the object as mediated through communities of speakers. He points out that proper names, in contrast to most descriptions, are rigid designators: that is, a proper name refers to the named object in every possible world in which the object exists, while most descriptions designate different objects in different possible worlds. For example, "Richard Nixon" refers to the same person in every possible world in which Nixon exists, while "the person who won the United States presidential election of 1968" could refer to Nixon, Humphrey, or others in different possible worlds.

Kripke also raised the prospect of a posteriori necessities — facts that are necessarily true, though they can be known only through empirical investigation. Examples include "Hesperus is Phosphorus", "Cicero is Tully", "Water is H2O" and other identity claims where two names refer to the same object.

Finally, Kripke gave an argument against identity materialism in the philosophy of mind, the view that every mental particular is identical with some physical particular. Kripke argued that the only way to defend this identity is as an a posteriori necessary identity, but that such an identity — e.g., that pain is C-fibers firing — could not be necessary, given the (clearly conceivable) possibility that pain could be separate from the firing of C-fibers, or the firing of C-fibers be separate from pain. (Similar arguments have since been made by David Chalmers.[16]) In any event, the psychophysical identity theorist, according to Kripke, incurs a dialectical obligation to explain the apparent logical possibility of these circumstances, since according to such theorists they should be impossible.

Kripke delivered the John Locke Lectures in philosophy at Oxford in 1973. Titled Reference and Existence, they were in many respects a continuation of Naming and Necessity, and deal with the subjects of fictional names and perceptual error. In 2013 Oxford University Press published the lectures as a book, also titled Reference and Existence.

In a 1995 paper, philosopher Quentin Smith argued that key concepts in Kripke's new theory of reference originated in the work of Ruth Barcan Marcus more than a decade earlier.[17] Smith identified six significant ideas in the New Theory that he claimed Marcus had developed: (1) that proper names are direct references that do not consist of contained definitions; (2) that while one can single out a single thing by a description, this description is not equivalent to a proper name of this thing; (3) the modal argument that proper names are directly referential, and not disguised descriptions; (4) a formal modal logic proof of the necessity of identity; (5) the concept of a rigid designator, though Kripke coined that term; and (6) a posteriori identity. Smith argued that Kripke failed to understand Marcus's theory at the time but later adopted many of its key conceptual themes in his New Theory of Reference.

Other scholars have subsequently offered detailed responses arguing that no plagiarism occurred.[18][19]


"A Puzzle about Belief"[edit]

Kripke's main propositions about proper names in Naming and Necessity are that the meaning of a name simply is the object it refers to and that a name's referent is determined by a causal link between some sort of "baptism" and the utterance of the name. Nevertheless, he acknowledges the possibility that propositions containing names may have some additional semantic properties,[20] properties that could explain why two names referring to the same person may give different truth values in propositions about beliefs. For example, Lois Lane believes that Superman can fly, although she does not believe that Clark Kent can fly. This can be accounted for if the names "Superman" and "Clark Kent", though referring to the same person, have distinct semantic properties.

But in his article "A Puzzle about Belief" Kripke seems to oppose even this possibility. His argument can be reconstructed as follows: The idea that two names referring to the same object may have different semantic properties is supposed to explain that coreferring names behave differently in propositions about beliefs (as in Lois Lane's case). But the same phenomenon occurs even with coreferring names that obviously have the same semantic properties: Kripke invites us to imagine a French, monolingual boy, Pierre, who believes that "Londres est joli" ("London is beautiful"). Pierre moves to London without realizing that London = Londres. He then learns English the same way a child would learn the language, that is, not by translating words from French to English. Pierre learns the name "London" from the unattractive part of the city where he lives, and so comes to believe that London is not beautiful. If Kripke's account is correct, Pierre now believes both that Londres is joli and that London is not beautiful. This cannot be explained by coreferring names having different semantic properties. According to Kripke, this demonstrates that attributing additional semantic properties to names does not explain what it is intended to.


Wittgenstein[edit]

	
	This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Saul Kripke" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR  (August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)



First published in 1982, Kripke's Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language contends that the central argument of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations centers on a devastating rule-following paradox that undermines the possibility of our ever following rules in our use of language.  Kripke writes that this paradox is "the most radical and original skeptical problem that philosophy has seen to date", and that Wittgenstein does not reject the argument that leads to the rule-following paradox, but accepts it and offers a "skeptical solution" to ameliorate the paradox's destructive effects.

Most commentators accept that Philosophical Investigations contains the rule-following paradox as Kripke presents it, but few have agreed with his attributing a skeptical solution to Wittgenstein. Kripke himself expresses doubts in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as to whether Wittgenstein would endorse his interpretation of Philosophical Investigations. He says that the work should not be read as an attempt to give an accurate statement of Wittgenstein's views, but rather as an account of Wittgenstein's argument "as it struck Kripke, as it presented a problem for him".

The portmanteau "Kripkenstein" has been coined for Kripke's interpretation of Philosophical Investigations. Kripkenstein's main significance was a clear statement of a new kind of skepticism, dubbed "meaning skepticism": the idea that for an isolated individual there is no fact in virtue of which he/she means one thing rather than another by the use of a word. Kripke's "skeptical solution" to meaning skepticism is to ground meaning in the behavior of a community.

Kripke's book generated a large secondary literature, divided between those who find his skeptical problem interesting and perceptive, and others, such as Gordon Baker and Peter Hacker, who argue that his meaning skepticism is a pseudo-problem that stems from a confused, selective reading of Wittgenstein. Kripke's position has been defended against these and other attacks by the Cambridge philosopher Martin Kusch, and Wittgenstein scholar David G. Stern considers Kripke's book "the most influential and widely discussed" work on Wittgenstein since the 1980s.[21]


Truth[edit]

In his 1975 article "Outline of a Theory of Truth", Kripke showed that a language can consistently contain its own truth predicate, something deemed impossible by Alfred Tarski, a pioneer in formal theories of truth. The approach involves letting truth be a partially defined property over the set of grammatically well-formed sentences in the language. Kripke showed how to do this recursively by starting from the set of expressions in a language that do not contain the truth predicate, and defining a truth predicate over just that segment: this action adds new sentences to the language, and truth is in turn defined for all of them. Unlike Tarski's approach, however, Kripke's lets "truth" be the union of all of these definition-stages; after a denumerable infinity of steps the language reaches a "fixed point" such that using Kripke's method to expand the truth-predicate does not change the language any further. Such a fixed point can then be taken as the basic form of a natural language containing its own truth predicate. But this predicate is undefined for any sentences that do not, so to speak, "bottom out" in simpler sentences not containing a truth predicate. That is, " 'Snow is white' is true" is well-defined, as is " ' "Snow is white" is true' is true," and so forth, but neither "This sentence is true" nor "This sentence is not true" receive truth-conditions; they are, in Kripke's terms, "ungrounded."


  
Saul Kripke gives a lecture about Gödel at the University of California, Santa Barbara.



Nevertheless, it has been shown by Gödel that self-reference cannot be avoided naively, since propositions about seemingly unrelated objects (such as integers) can have an informal self-referential meaning, and this idea – manifested by the diagonal lemma – is the basis for Tarski's theorem that truth cannot be consistently defined. It has thus been claimed[22] that Kripke's suggestion does lead to contradiction: while its truth predicate is only partial, it does give truth value (true/false) to propositions such as the one built in Tarski's proof, and is therefore inconsistent. There is still a debate about whether Tarski's proof can be implemented to every variation of such a partial truth system, but none has been shown to be consistent by acceptable proving methods used in mathematical logic.

Kripke's proposal is also problematic in the sense that while the language contains a "truth" predicate of itself (at least a partial one), some of its sentences – such as the liar sentence ("this sentence is false") – have an undefined truth value, but the language does not contain its own "undefined" predicate. In fact it cannot, as that would create a new version of the liar paradox, called the strengthened liar paradox ("this sentence is false or undefined"). Thus while the liar sentence is undefined in the language, the language cannot express that it is undefined.[23]


Religious views[edit]

Kripke is an observant Jew.[24]
On how his religious views influenced his philosophical views, he has said: "I don't have the prejudices many have today. I don't believe in a naturalist worldview. I don't base my thinking on prejudices or a worldview and do not believe in materialism."[25]


Saul Kripke Center[edit]

The Saul Kripke Center at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York is dedicated to preserving and promoting Kripke's work. Its director is Romina Padro. The Saul Kripke Center holds events related to Kripke's work and is creating a digital archive of previously unpublished recordings of Kripke's lectures, lecture notes, and correspondence dating back to the 1950s.[26] In his favorable review of Kripke's Philosophical Troubles, the Stanford philosopher Mark Crimmins wrote, "That four of the most admired and discussed essays in 1970s philosophy are here is enough to make this first volume of Saul Kripke's collected articles a must-have... The reader's delight will grow as hints are dropped that there is a great deal more to come in this series being prepared by Kripke and an ace team of philosopher-editors at the Saul Kripke Center at The Graduate Center of the City University of New York."[27]


Awards and recognitions[edit]

	Fulbright Scholar (1962–1963)
	Society of Fellows, Harvard University (1963–1966).
	Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Nebraska, 1977.
	Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1978–).
	Corresponding Fellow, British Academy (1985–).
	Howard Behrman Award, Princeton University, 1988.
	Fellow, Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaea (1993–).
	Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, Johns Hopkins University, 1997.
	Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Haifa, Israel, 1998.
	Fellow, Norwegian Academy of Sciences (2000–).
	Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy, Swedish Academy of Sciences, 2001.
	Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Pennsylvania, 2005.
	Fellow, American Philosophical Society (2005–).


Works[edit]

	Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. ISBN 0-674-59845-8
	Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: an Elementary Exposition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982. 
ISBN 0-674-95401-7.
	Philosophical Troubles. Collected Papers Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 
ISBN 9780199730155
	Reference and Existence – The John Locke Lectures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. 
ISBN 9780199928385


See also[edit]


	Philosophy portal



	American philosophy
	List of American philosophers
	Barry Kripke (a character on The Big Bang Theory who is believed to be named after Saul)


References[edit]


	^ 
Cumming, Sam (30 May 2018).  Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

	^ 
Palmquist, Stephen (December 1987). "A Priori Knowledge in Perspective: (II) Naming, Necessity and the Analytic A Posteriori". The Review of Metaphysics. 41 (2): 255–282.

	^ Georg Northoff, Minding the Brain: A Guide to Philosophy and Neuroscience, Palgrave, p. 51.

	^ Michael Giudice, Understanding the Nature of Law: A Case for Constructive Conceptual Explanation, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, p. 92.

	^ Saul Kripke (1986). "Rigid Designation and the Contingent A Priori: The Meter Stick Revisited" (Notre Dame).

	^ Jerry Fodor, "Water's water everywhere", London Review of Books, 21 October 2004

	^ 
Kripke, Saul (2011). Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. xii. ISBN 978-0-19-973015-5.

	^ 
Charles McGrath (2006-01-28). "Philosopher, 65, Lectures Not About 'What Am I?' but 'What Is I?'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-01-23.

	^ A Companion to Analytic Philosophy (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy), by A. P. Martinich (Editor), E. David Sosa (Editor), 38. Saul Kripke (1940–)

	^ Saul Kripke – The Graduate Center, CUNY

	^ 
McGrath, Charles (January 28, 2006). "Philosopher, 65, Lectures Not About 'What Am I?' but 'What Is I?'". The New York Times.

	^ 
"Saul Kripke - American logician and philosopher".

	^ https://www.britac.ac.uk/user/3271[permanent dead link]

	^ http://www.rolfschockprizes.se/en-GB/priset/tidigarepristagare.10.html

	^ Fludernik, Monika. "Histories of Narrative Theory: From Structuralism to Present." A Companion to Narrative Theory. Ed. Phelan and Rabinowitz. Blackwell Publishing, MA:2005.

	^ Chalmers, David. 1996. The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press pp. 146–9.

	^ 
Smith, Quentin (2 August 2001). "Marcus, Kripke, and the Origin of the New Theory of Reference". Synthese. 104 (2): 179–189. doi:10.1007/BF01063869. S2CID 44151212. Archived from the original on 7 May 2006. Retrieved 2007-05-28.

	^ 
Stephen Neale (9 February 2001). "No Plagiarism Here" (PDF). Times Literary Supplement. 104 (2): 12–13. doi:10.1007/BF01063869. S2CID 44151212. Archived from the original (.PDF) on 14 July 2010. Retrieved 2009-11-13.

	^ John Burgess, "Marcus, Kripke, and Names" Philosophical Studies, 84: 1, pp. 1–47.

	^ Kripke, 1980, p. 20

	^ Stern, David G. 2006.  Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations: An Introduction.  Cambridge University Press. p. 2

	^ Keith Simmons, Universality and the Liar: An Essay on Truth and the Diagonal Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993

	^ 
Bolander, Thomas (30 May 2018).  Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

	^ 
"Kripke is Jewish, and he takes this seriously. He is not a nominal Jew and he is careful keeping the Sabbath, for instance he doesn't use public transportation on Saturdays."  Andreas Saugstad, "Saul Kripke: Genius logician", 25 February 2001.

	^ Andreas Saugstad, "Saul Kripke: Genius logician", 25 February 2001.

	^ Saul Kripke Center website: Most of these recordings and lecture notes were created by Nathan Salmon while he was a student and, later, a colleague of Kripke's.

	^ 
Crimmins, Mark (30 October 2013). "Review of Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers, Volume 1" – via Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)





Further reading[edit]

	Arif Ahmed (2007), Saul Kripke. New York, NY; London: Continuum. 
ISBN 0-8264-9262-2.
	Alan Berger (editor) (2011) "Saul Kripke." 
ISBN 978-0-521-85826-7.
	Taylor Branch (1977), "New Frontiers in American Philosophy: Saul Kripke". The New York Times Magazine.
	John Burgess (2013), "Saul Kripke: Puzzles and Mysteries." 
ISBN 978-0-7456-5284-9.
	G. W. Fitch (2005), Saul Kripke. 
ISBN 0-7735-2885-7.
	Christopher Hughes (2004), Kripke : Names, Necessity, and Identity. 
ISBN 0-19-824107-0.
	Martin Kusch (2006), A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules. Defending Kripke's Wittgenstein. Acumben: Publishing Limited.
	Colin McGinn (1984), Wittgenstein on Meaning. 
ISBN 0631137645 
ISBN 978-0631137641.
	Christopher Norris (2007), Fiction, Philosophy and Literary Theory: Will the Real Saul Kripke Please Stand Up? London: Continuum
	Consuelo Preti (2002), On Kripke. Wadsworth. 
ISBN 0-534-58366-0.
	Nathan Salmon (1981), Reference and Essence. 
ISBN 1-59102-215-0 
ISBN 978-1591022152.
	Scott Soames (2002), Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. 
ISBN 0-19-514529-1.


External links[edit]

		Wikiquote has quotations related to: Saul Kripke


		Wikimedia Commons has media related to Saul Kripke.


	CUNY Graduate Center Philosophy Department faculty page
	The Saul Kripke Center, at the CUNY Graduate Center
	Saul Kripke's archive on the CUNY Philosophy Commons
	Second Annual Saul Kripke Lecture by John Burgess on the Necessity of Origin at the CUNY Graduate Center, November 13th, 2012
	Saul Kripke at the Mathematics Genealogy Project
	"Saul Kripke, Genius Logician", a short, non-technical interview by Andreas Saugstad, February 25, 2001.
	The conference in honor of Kripke's sixty-fifth birthday with a video of his speech "The First Person", January 25–26, 2006
	Video of his talk "From Church's Thesis to the First Order Algorithm Theorem," June 13, 2006.
	Podcast of his talk "Unrestricted Exportation and Some Morals for the Philosophy of Language," May 21, 2008.
	London Review of Books article by Jerry Fodor discussing Kripke's work
	Celebrating CUNY's Genius Philosopher, by Gary Shapiro, January 27, 2006, in The New York Sun.
	information from 'Wisdom Supreme' website
	A New York Times article about his 65th birthday
	Roundtable on Kripke's critique of mind-body identity with Scott Soames as the main presenter May 26, 2010.


		v
	t
	e


Analytic philosophy

	Related articles	
	Areas of focus	
	Epistemology
	Language
	Mathematics
	Science




	Turns	
	Aretaic
	Linguistic




	Logic	
	Classical
	Mathematical
	Non-classical
	Philosophical







	Theories	
	Anti-realism
	Australian realism
	Descriptivist theory of names
	Emotivism
	Functionalism
	Analytical feminism
	Logical atomism
	Logical positivism
	Analytical Marxism
	Neopragmatism
	Neurophilosophy
	Ordinary language
	Quietism
	Scientific structuralism
	Sense data




	Concepts	
	Analysis (paradox of analysis)
	Analytic–synthetic distinction
	Counterfactual
	Natural kind
	Reflective equilibrium
	Supervenience



	Modality	
	Actualism
	Necessity
	Possibility
	Possible world
	Realism
	Rigid designator








	Philosophers	
	Noam Chomsky
	Keith Donnellan
	Paul Feyerabend
	Gottlob Frege
	Ian Hacking
	Karl Popper
	Ernest Sosa
	Barry Stroud
	Michael Walzer



	Cambridge	
	Charlie Broad
	Norman Malcolm
	G. E. Moore
	Graham Priest
	Bertrand Russell
	Frank P. Ramsey
	Ludwig Wittgenstein




	Oxford	
	G. E. M. Anscombe
	J. L. Austin
	A. J. Ayer
	Michael Dummett
	Antony Flew
	Philippa Foot
	Peter Geach
	Paul Grice
	R. M. Hare
	Alasdair MacIntyre
	Derek Parfit
	Gilbert Ryle
	John Searle
	P. F. Strawson
	Richard Swinburne
	Charles Taylor
	Bernard Williams
	Timothy Williamson




	Logical positivists	
	Ernest Nagel



	Berlin Circle	
	Carl Gustav Hempel
	Hans Reichenbach




	Vienna Circle	
	Rudolf Carnap
	Kurt Gödel
	Otto Neurath
	Moritz Schlick








	Harvard	
	Roderick Chisholm
	Donald Davidson
	Daniel Dennett
	Nelson Goodman
	Christine Korsgaard
	Thomas Kuhn
	Thomas Nagel
	Robert Nozick
	Hilary Putnam
	W. V. O. Quine
	John Rawls




	Pittsburgh School	
	Robert Brandom
	Patricia Churchland
	Paul Churchland
	Adolf Grünbaum
	John McDowell
	Ruth Millikan
	Nicholas Rescher
	Wilfrid Sellars
	Bas van Fraassen




	Princeton	
	Jerry Fodor
	David Lewis
	Jaegwon Kim
	Saul Kripke
	Richard Rorty




	Notre Dame	
	Robert Audi
	Peter van Inwagen
	Alvin Plantinga




	Australian	
	David Chalmers
	J. L. Mackie
	Peter Singer
	J. J. C. Smart




	Quietism	
	James F. Conant
	Alice Crary
	Cora Diamond








	
	 Category
	 Index







	
	v
	t
	e


Metaphysics

	Metaphysicians	
	Parmenides
	Plato
	Aristotle
	Plotinus
	Duns Scotus
	Thomas Aquinas
	Francisco Suárez
	Nicolas Malebranche
	René Descartes
	John Locke
	David Hume
	Thomas Reid
	Immanuel Kant
	Isaac Newton
	Arthur Schopenhauer
	Baruch Spinoza
	Georg W. F. Hegel
	George Berkeley
	Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
	Christian Wolff
	Bernard Bolzano
	Hermann Lotze
	Henri Bergson
	Friedrich Nietzsche
	Charles Sanders Peirce
	Joseph Maréchal
	Ludwig Wittgenstein
	Martin Heidegger
	Alfred N. Whitehead
	Bertrand Russell
	G. E. Moore
	Jean-Paul Sartre
	Gilbert Ryle
	Hilary Putnam
	P. F. Strawson
	R. G. Collingwood
	Rudolf Carnap
	Saul Kripke
	W. V. O. Quine
	G. E. M. Anscombe
	Donald Davidson
	Michael Dummett
	D. M. Armstrong
	David Lewis
	Alvin Plantinga
	Héctor-Neri Castañeda
	Peter van Inwagen
	Derek Parfit
	Alexius Meinong
	Ernst Mally
	Edward N. Zalta
	more ...




	Theories	
	Abstract object theory
	Action theory
	Anti-realism
	Determinism
	Dualism
	Enactivism
	Essentialism
	Existentialism
	Free will
	Idealism
	Libertarianism
	Liberty
	Materialism
	Meaning of life
	Monism
	Naturalism
	Nihilism
	Phenomenalism
	Realism
	Physicalism
	Platonic idealism
	Relativism
	Scientific realism
	Solipsism
	Subjectivism
	Substance theory
	Truthmaker theory
	Type theory




	Concepts	
	Abstract object
	Anima mundi
	Being
	Category of being
	Causality
	Causal closure
	Choice
	Cogito, ergo sum
	Concept
	Embodied cognition
	Essence
	Existence
	Experience
	Hypostatic abstraction
	Idea
	Identity
	Information
	Insight
	Intelligence
	Intention
	Linguistic modality
	Matter
	Meaning
	Memetics
	Mental representation
	Mind
	Motion
	Nature
	Necessity
	Notion
	Object
	Pattern
	Perception
	Physical object
	Principle
	Property
	Qualia
	Quality
	Reality
	Relation
	Soul
	Subject
	Substantial form
	Thought
	Time
	Truth
	Type–token distinction
	Universal
	Unobservable
	Value
	more ...




	Related topics	
	Axiology
	Cosmology
	Epistemology
	Feminist metaphysics
	Interpretations of quantum mechanics
	Mereology
	Meta-
	Ontology
	Philosophy of mind
	Philosophy of psychology
	Philosophy of self
	Philosophy of space and time
	Teleology
	Theoretical physics




	
	 Category
	 Philosophy portal







	
	v
	t
	e


Epistemology

	Epistemologists	
	Thomas Aquinas
	Augustine of Hippo
	William Alston
	Robert Audi
	A. J. Ayer
	George Berkeley
	Laurence BonJour
	Keith DeRose
	René Descartes
	John Dewey
	Fred Dretske
	Edmund Gettier
	Alvin Goldman
	Nelson Goodman
	Paul Grice
	Anil Gupta
	Susan Haack
	David Hume
	Immanuel Kant
	Søren Kierkegaard
	Peter Klein
	Saul Kripke
	Hilary Kornblith
	David Lewis
	John Locke
	G. E. Moore
	John McDowell
	Robert Nozick
	Alvin Plantinga
	Plato
	Duncan Pritchard
	James Pryor
	Hilary Putnam
	W. V. O. Quine
	Thomas Reid
	Bertrand Russell
	Gilbert Ryle
	Wilfrid Sellars
	Susanna Siegel
	Ernest Sosa
	P. F. Strawson
	Baruch Spinoza
	Timothy Williamson
	Ludwig Wittgenstein
	Nicholas Wolterstorff
	Vienna Circle
	more...




	Theories	
	Coherentism
	Constructivism
	Contextualism
	Empiricism
	Evolutionary epistemology
	Fallibilism
	Feminist epistemology
	Fideism
	Foundationalism
	Holism
	Infinitism
	Innatism
	Naïve realism
	Naturalized epistemology
	Phenomenalism
	Positivism
	Rationalism
	Reductionism
	Reliabilism
	Representational realism
	Skepticism
	Transcendental idealism




	Concepts	
	A priori knowledge
	A posteriori knowledge
	Analysis
	Analytic–synthetic distinction
	Belief
	Common sense
	Descriptive knowledge
	Exploratory thought
	Gettier problem
	Induction
	Internalism and externalism
	Justification
	Knowledge
	Objectivity
	Privileged access
	Problem of induction
	Problem of other minds
	Perception
	Procedural knowledge
	Proposition
	Regress argument
	Simplicity
	Speculative reason
	Truth
	more...




	Related articles	
	Outline of epistemology
	Faith and rationality
	Formal epistemology
	Meta-epistemology
	Philosophy of perception
	Philosophy of science
	Social epistemology




	
	Category
	Task Force
	Stubs
	Discussion







	
	v
	t
	e


Philosophy of language

	Index of language articles

	Philosophers	
	Plato (Cratylus)
	Gorgias
	Confucius
	Xunzi
	Aristotle
	Stoics
	Pyrrhonists
	Scholasticism
	Ibn Rushd
	Ibn Khaldun
	Thomas Hobbes
	Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
	Johann Herder
	Ludwig Noiré
	Wilhelm von Humboldt
	Fritz Mauthner
	Paul Ricœur
	Ferdinand de Saussure
	Gottlob Frege
	Franz Boas
	Paul Tillich
	Edward Sapir
	Leonard Bloomfield
	Zhuangzi
	Henri Bergson
	Lev Vygotsky
	Ludwig Wittgenstein
	Philosophical Investigations
	Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus


	Bertrand Russell
	Rudolf Carnap
	Jacques Derrida
	Of Grammatology
	Limited Inc


	Benjamin Lee Whorf
	Gustav Bergmann
	J. L. Austin
	Noam Chomsky
	Hans-Georg Gadamer
	Saul Kripke
	A. J. Ayer
	G. E. M. Anscombe
	Jaakko Hintikka
	Michael Dummett
	Donald Davidson
	Roger Gibson
	Paul Grice
	Gilbert Ryle
	P. F. Strawson
	Willard Van Orman Quine
	Hilary Putnam
	David Lewis
	John Searle
	Joxe Azurmendi
	Scott Soames
	Stephen Yablo
	John Hawthorne
	Stephen Neale
	Paul Watzlawick




	Theories	
	Causal theory of reference
	Contrast theory of meaning
	Contrastivism
	Conventionalism
	Cratylism
	Deconstruction
	Descriptivism
	Direct reference theory
	Dramatism
	Dynamic semantics
	Expressivism
	Linguistic determinism
	Mediated reference theory
	Nominalism
	Non-cognitivism
	Phallogocentrism
	Relevance theory
	Semantic externalism
	Semantic holism
	Structuralism
	Supposition theory
	Symbiosism
	Theological noncognitivism
	Theory of descriptions (Definite description)
	Unilalianism
	Verification theory




	Concepts	
	Ambiguity
	Cant
	Linguistic relativity
	Language
	Truth-bearer
	Proposition
	Use–mention distinction
	Concept
	Categories
	Set
	Class
	Family resemblance
	Intension
	Logical form
	Metalanguage
	Mental representation
	Presupposition
	Principle of compositionality
	Property
	Sign
	Sense and reference
	Speech act
	Symbol
	Sentence
	Statement
	more...




	Related articles	
	Analytic philosophy
	Philosophy of information
	Philosophical logic
	Linguistics
	Pragmatics
	Rhetoric
	Semantics
	Formal semantics
	Semiotics




	
	Category
	Task Force
	Discussion







	
	v
	t
	e


Rolf Schock Prize laureates

	Logic and philosophy	
	Willard Van Orman Quine (1993)
	Michael Dummett (1995)
	Dana Scott (1997)
	John Rawls (1999)
	Saul Kripke (2001)
	Solomon Feferman (2003)
	Jaakko Hintikka (2005)
	Thomas Nagel (2008)
	Hilary Putnam (2011)
	Derek Parfit (2014)
	Ruth Millikan (2017)
	Saharon Shelah (2018)
	Dag Prawitz / Per Martin-Löf (2020)




	Mathematics	
	Elias M. Stein (1993)
	Andrew Wiles (1995)
	Mikio Sato (1997)
	Yuri I. Manin (1999)
	Elliott H. Lieb (2001)
	Richard P. Stanley (2003)
	Luis Caffarelli (2005)
	Endre Szemerédi (2008)
	Michael Aschbacher (2011)
	Yitang Zhang (2014)
	Richard Schoen (2017)
	Ronald Coifman (2018)
	Nikolai G. Makarov (2020)




	Visual arts	
	Rafael Moneo (1993)
	Claes Oldenburg (1995)
	Torsten Andersson (1997)
	Herzog & de Meuron  (1999)
	Giuseppe Penone (2001)
	Susan Rothenberg (2003)
	SANAA / Kazuyo Sejima + Ryue Nishizawa (2005)
	Mona Hatoum (2008)
	Marlene Dumas (2011)
	Anne Lacaton / Jean-Philippe Vassal (2014)
	Doris Salcedo (2017)
	Andrea Branzi (2018)
	Francis Alÿs (2020)




	Musical arts	
	Ingvar Lidholm (1993)
	György Ligeti (1995)
	Jorma Panula (1997)
	Kronos Quartet (1999)
	Kaija Saariaho (2001)
	Anne Sofie von Otter (2003)
	Mauricio Kagel (2005)
	Gidon Kremer (2008)
	Andrew Manze (2011)
	Herbert Blomstedt (2014)
	Wayne Shorter (2017)
	Barbara Hannigan (2018)
	György Kurtág (2020)







	
	v
	t
	e


Ludwig Wittgenstein

	Family	
	Margaret Stonborough-Wittgenstein
	Karl Wittgenstein
	Paul Wittgenstein
	Works associated with Paul Wittgenstein




	Early work	
	Picture theory of language
	Truth tables




	Later work	
	Language-game
	Private language argument
	Family resemblance
	Rule-following
	Form of life
	Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics




	Publications	
	Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
	"Some Remarks on Logical Form"
	Blue and Brown Books
	Philosophical Remarks
	Philosophical Investigations
	On Certainty
	Culture and Value
	Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough
	Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
	Zettel
	Remarks on Colour
	Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief




	Movements	
	Analytic philosophy
	Linguistic turn
	Ideal language philosophy
	Logical atomism
	Logical positivism
	Ordinary language philosophy
	Wittgensteinian fideism
	Quietism




	Friends	
	G. E. M. Anscombe
	R. B. Braithwaite
	Rudolf Carnap
	Paul Engelmann
	John Maynard Keynes
	Peter Geach
	Norman Malcolm
	G. E. Moore
	David Pinsent
	Frank P. Ramsey
	Rush Rhees
	Bertrand Russell
	Moritz Schlick
	Francis Skinner
	Piero Sraffa
	Vienna Circle
	Friedrich Waismann
	Peter Winch
	G. H. von Wright




	Biographers	
	David Edmonds
	Ray Monk
	William Warren Bartley




	Secondary sources	
	A. J. Ayer
	Gordon Baker
	James F. Conant
	Alice Crary
	Cora Diamond
	Terry Eagleton
	Peter Hacker
	Dale Jacquette
	Saul Kripke
	Anthony Kenny
	Warren Goldfarb
	Stanley Cavell
	D. Z. Phillips
	Colin McGinn
	Jaakko Hintikka
	Oswald Hanfling
	A. C. Grayling
	Rupert Read
	Barry Stroud
	Stephen Toulmin
	Crispin Wright
	Fergus Kerr




	Miscellaneous	
	Cambridge Apostles
	Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club
	Haidbauer incident
	Haus Wittgenstein
	Fritz Mauthner




	Film	
	Wittgenstein (film)







	Authority control 	
	BNF: cb119101083 (data)
	CANTIC: a11559408
	DBLP: 80/3448
	GND: 118813455
	ISNI: 0000 0001 1080 8458
	LCCN: n79128358
	MGP: 13743
	NDL: 00446355
	NKC: jn20011019100
	NLK: KAC199615485
	NTA: 06870853X
	PLWABN: 9810563774605606
	SELIBR: 291251
	SNAC: w6h20cpp
	SUDOC: 026954079
	VIAF: 108251834
	 WorldCat Identities: lccn-n79128358














Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saul_Kripke&oldid=998463357"


		Categories: 	1940 births
	20th-century American non-fiction writers
	20th-century American philosophers
	20th-century essayists
	20th-century philosophers
	21st-century American non-fiction writers
	21st-century American philosophers
	21st-century essayists
	21st-century philosophers
	American logicians
	American male non-fiction writers
	American metaphysics writers
	American people of Lithuanian-Jewish descent
	Analytic philosophers
	Contemporary philosophers
	Corresponding Fellows of the British Academy
	Epistemologists
	Harvard University alumni
	Historians of philosophy
	Jewish American academics
	Jewish American writers
	Jewish philosophers
	Jews and Judaism in Omaha, Nebraska
	Lecturers
	Living people
	Mathematicians from New York (state)
	Members of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts
	Members of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
	Metaphysicians
	Modal logicians
	Omaha Central High School alumni
	Ontologists
	People from Bay Shore, New York
	Philosophers from Nebraska
	Philosophers from New York (state)
	Philosophers of history
	Philosophers of Judaism
	Philosophers of language
	Philosophers of logic
	Philosophers of mathematics
	Philosophers of mind
	Princeton University faculty
	Rolf Schock Prize laureates
	Set theorists
	Writers from Omaha, Nebraska


Hidden categories: 	All articles with dead external links
	Articles with dead external links from July 2018
	Articles with permanently dead external links
	CS1 errors: missing periodical
	Articles with hCards
	Articles needing additional references from August 2017
	All articles needing additional references
	Commons category link is on Wikidata
	Wikipedia articles with BNF identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with CANTIC identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with DBLP identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with ISNI identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with MGP identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with NKC identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with NLK identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with NTA identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with PLWABN identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with SELIBR identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with SNAC-ID identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with SUDOC identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
	Wikipedia articles with WORLDCATID identifiers




	




	





	Navigation menu

	
		

	
		Personal tools
	

	
			Not logged in
	Talk
	Contributions
	Create account
	Log in


		
	



		
			

	
		Namespaces
	

	
			Article
	Talk


		
	



			

	
	
		Variants
	

	
		

		
	



		

		
			

	
		Views
	

	
			Read
	Edit
	View history


		
	



			

	
	
		More
	

	
		

		
	



			
	
		Search
	

	
		
			
			
			
			
		

	




		

	

	

	
		
	

	

	
		Navigation
	

	
			Main page
	Contents
	Current events
	Random article
	About Wikipedia
	Contact us
	Donate


		
	



	

	
		Contribute
	

	
			Help
	Learn to edit
	Community portal
	Recent changes
	Upload file


		
	




	
		Tools
	

	
			What links here
	Related changes
	Upload file
	Special pages
	Permanent link
	Page information
	Cite this page
	Wikidata item


		
	




	
		Print/export
	

	
			Download as PDF
	Printable version


		
	




	
		In other projects
	

	
			Wikimedia Commons
	Wikiquote


		
	



	

	
		Languages
	

	
			العربية
	Български
	Català
	Čeština
	Deutsch
	Eesti
	Español
	فارسی
	Français
	한국어
	Հայերեն
	Hrvatski
	Bahasa Indonesia
	Íslenska
	Italiano
	עברית
	ქართული
	Latina
	മലയാളം
	مصرى
	Nederlands
	日本語
	Norsk bokmål
	Polski
	Português
	Română
	Русский
	Simple English
	Slovenčina
	Slovenščina
	Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
	Suomi
	Svenska
	தமிழ்
	Türkçe
	Українська
	中文


		Edit links

	









		 This page was last edited on 5 January 2021, at 14:06 (UTC).
	Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply.  By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



		Privacy policy
	About Wikipedia
	Disclaimers
	Contact Wikipedia
	Mobile view
	Developers
	Statistics
	Cookie statement