Let's Read! Saul Kripke, 1970, Naming and Necessity

Full text is available here: link.springer....
A video of Saul Kripke himself discussing these issues in 2019, nearly 50 years after the original lectures, is here: • Naming and Necessity R...
Significant papers references in the text:
Keith Donnellan, 1966, "Reference and Definite Descriptions": philpapers.org...
Gottlob Frege, 1892, "On Sense and Reference": philpapers.org...
(see also my Let's Read! video of that: • Video )
Bertrand Russell, 1905, "On Denoting": philpapers.org...
Paul Ziff, 1961, "About God": philpapers.org...
John Searle, 1958, "Proper Names": philpapers.org...
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy links on relevant topics:
The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction: plato.stanford...
The Epistemology of Modality: plato.stanford...
Wikipedia pages of some of the people used as examples:
Albert Einstein: en.wikipedia.o...
Richard Feynman: en.wikipedia.o...
Murray Gell-Mann: en.wikipedia.o...
The Dedekind-Peano axioms of arithmetic: en.wikipedia.o...
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems: en.wikipedia.o...
Benjamin Franklin: en.wikipedia.o...

[@isaiahwalker5753]

I’m a dyslexic student.The lack of audio in a lot of philosophy writing has made it more taxing on time and mental energy to cover many of the reading. Thank you for reading the text and not just the ideas in the text. It has been very helpful.

[@keaswaran0]

I'm glad to hear this is helpful!

[@danwroy]

Ok, lmao

[@milosmilojevic3506]

I have just find out this channel. Thank you for effort and remarkable materials.

[@simplacaca]

59:12 Lecture II

[@muthusid]

This is wonderful, thanks.

[@darrellee8194]

A proper name is understood to pick out a particular object.
A proper name is a relation between a speaker and the object picked out
An object is a particular entity with extension and location.
Historical figures are not objects that we can point to, at best we could maybe
point at their bones, but likely not even that. They are hardly more substantial than a fictitious characters. Some of them are in fact fictitious characters.
They may once have been real persons, but now the name refers to a mythic figure, and not a person.
Everything we know about Moses may have no factual basis. So the word Moses refers to the common cultural conception of Mose as presented in the Bible and in popular culture (for me, Charlton Heston is Moses). The word may once have been a name that referred to a living person, but now that is just another quality of the word and not its referent.
I might go so far as to say that only persons acquainted with the Socrates use the word "Socrates" as a name, and for the rest of us it refers to some shadow of *Socrates*. It's the difference between knowing *Socrates* and knowing of "Socrates". The difference between a person and an idea.

[@darrellee8194]

A proper name is simply a label for a specific object (as per Mill)
But it only works that way for people already acquainted with the object.
For everyone else it has to bring to mind a description which
is in whole or in part uniquely identifies the entity that the user of the
name would like to pick out (It fails if it picks out too many or none at all).
Once the listener is acquainted with the object the description (which may not have been accurate) is no longer necessary to identify the individual.

[@jorgemittelmann620]

This is extraordinarily helpful!! Keep up with the wonderful job !! ❤

[@brigettepenrod]

one of the best philosophy resources I have found. Thank you!

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Asamalaykum

[@oussamazbair1479]

Thank you sir

[@DarrenMcStravick]

You are welcome, honey