Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Kripke's own essentialist arguments in 'Naming and Necess... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Arguments that establish F as an essential property of K are invulnerable to the complaint that not everything with property F is K.

    Kripke's own essentialist arguments in 'Naming and Necessity' ground necessity in identity conditions that presuppose uniqueness of the kind's extension.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's rigid designators require stable reference across possible worlds, which demands determinate identity conditions for kinds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Natural kind essentialism requires extension uniqueness; otherwise multiple distinct kinds could satisfy identical origin/composition properties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If kinds lacked unique extensions, their modal properties would be indeterminate, making necessary truths about them unknowable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Kinds can have indeterminate or vague boundaries yet still possess genuine modal properties and fixed identity conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The argument conflates epistemological access to extension with metaphysical requirements for identity; necessity doesn't require uniqueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical counterexamples show kinds (gold, water) have been reclassified while maintaining identity; extension uniqueness is too restrictive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Modality & Possibility1 linkedPhilosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    Arguments that establish F as an essential property of K are invulnerable to the...Historical counterexamples show kinds (gold, water) have been reclassified while...If kinds lacked unique extensions, their modal properties would be indeterminate...Kinds can have indeterminate or vague boundaries yet still possess genuine modal...
    +3 moreShow less
    Kripke's rigid designators require stable reference across possible worlds, whic...Natural kind essentialism requires extension uniqueness; otherwise multiple dist...The argument conflates epistemological access to extension with metaphysical req...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit