克里普克论对同一性陈述的模态认知

发布时间：2016-12-08 07:17

  本文关键词：克里普克论对同一性陈述的模态认知，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

克里普克论对同一性陈述的模态认知

     2009-7-22 2:47:37     来源：     

　　论文标题克里普克论对同一性陈述的模态认知
Kripke on the Modal Knowledge of Identity Statements
论文作者
论文导师韩林合,论文学位硕士,论文专业外国哲学
论文单位北京大学,点击次数0,论文页数29页File Size466K
2008-05-01
Conceivability;; Identity;; Modal Epistemology;; Necessary A Posteriori Truth
在《命名与必然性》一书中,克里普克基于其“固定指示语”理论,依靠“可设想性论证”对身心同一论作出了先天的反驳。本文即以此论证为线索,探讨对“可设想性”的各种刻画方式,力图揭示在克里普克的体系下,难以对这个概念作出确切的刻画使得它能满足“可设想性论证”的要求,从而他并不能在此基础上反驳身心同一论并建立对形而上学模态的认知。全文共分为六个部分。第一部分介绍克里普克的论证并指出其中用到的一个重要原则:由“可设想性”推导出“可能性”的“休谟原则”。第二部分讨论一种通常的对“可设想性”的理解——认知可能性,指出这种理解并不能使休谟原则成立。第三部分通过分析克里普克对“后天必然真理”的模态地位的说明,指出对“可设想性”的理解必须排除一种与之相伴随的模态幻觉。在此基础上,第四部分论证因为休谟原则总是面临着模态怀疑论的挑战,从而试图通过可设想性这一先天的方式来论证形而上学可能性最终是失败的。第五部分则着重讨论由专名构成的同一性陈述,指出因为克里普克难以对这类“后天必然真理”的后天性作出合理的说明,从而试图通过后天的方式来认知同一性陈述的模态地位也是不成功的。本文最终的结论是,在克里普克的体系下,不管是通过先天的方式,还是通过后天的方式,都不能对同一性陈述1的模态认知作出合理的解释,如何对形而上学模态建立适当的认识论从而成为他的模态语义学的一大难题。
In his book Naming and Necessity, based on the semantics of‘Rigid Designators’, Kripke constructs a‘conceivability argument’to argue that we can know a priori that the identity thesis about body and mind is false. This paper aims to argue that Kripke’s strategy is not persuasive, for he cannot form an appropriate characterization of the core concept he employs: conceivability. The paper is consisted of six parts. The first one introduces Kripke’s argument, from which I’ll draw an important principle (Hume’s Principle) which claims that conceivability entails possibility. Part two examines a prevalent understanding of‘conceivability’in literature, and argues that this kind of characterization cannot bring Hume’s principle through. Part three aims to clarify some qualification which is implicit in Kripke’s discussion of‘necessary a posteriori truths’. Based on these, Part four continues to argue that since such qualification will lead to modal skepticism, Kripke’s conceivability approach to metaphysical possibility fails. Part five examines whether the a posteriori approach could be a good guide to metaphysical modality of identity statements. My final conclusion will be that neither the a priori strategy nor the a posteriori method could be treated as successful explanation of our modal knowledge, thus how to know metaphysical modality is a serious problem within Kripke’s framework.

  本文关键词：克里普克论对同一性陈述的模态认知，，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

本文编号：207757