@@JoseSanchez-zo5tb he was a brilliant philosopher, one of the best in his time, but as man, I dunno...You know he a was a serial stalker of college girls to the extent that the Uni had to isolate his office away from dorms, right? :)
My overall comment on this (rather than on any detail) is that I'm surprised about how critical Kripke is of Wittgenstein. I haven't really ever followed the whole "Kripkenstein" debate; though I always took Kripke to be a "follower" of Wittgenstein, if with a few added quibbles here and there.
Saul Kripke is one of the best philosophers of all time. One of the most extravagantly enlightening ideas of his is that once an object is "baptized" with the first use (the origin) of its name, it more reliably denotes that individual than any of the properties the individual might acquire during a lifetime that might evolve in multiple possible ways. Another one related to the one stated prior is that the rigidity of a proper name is only in connection with its early date. Any property that was established in the past is now unchangeable-required by having the quality of taking effect from a date in the past?-even if it could have been otherwise-so it too might serve as a rigid designator. The only absolute identity is the recognition of one's potential and qualities as an individual, in particular relating to the types of settings in which people are busy and active. All things are identical only to the group of objects previously mentioned as the subject of the unit of grammatical organization said to consist of that subject mentioned in the foregoing and a predicate.
The interviewer asked a lot of boring questions, but at 7:25 Kripke starts to talk about what he and not Kripkenstein (Wittgenstein, as he struck Kripke) thinks of the sceptical solution to the sceptical paradox, until he is shut off by the interviewer. Thank you for uploading, Greetings from India 🇮🇳🐄 (Superpower by 2025)
Yeah, I see your point. It would be nice, instead, to tease out points Kripke's mentioned in passing, but not elaborated on. E.g., at the outset of N&N, Kripke claims that unicorns not only don't exist, they necessarily don't exist. But he lacked time in the lectures to elaborate :(
ThePhilosopher: Why is it "tasteless"? I don't understand. Talk of 'Kripkenstein' was all the rage in analytic philosophy for around a decade or even more (say, in the 1980s) - at least in subsections of analytic philosophy... Besides which, the reference to "Kripkenstein" is only a small part of the interview.
Actually, the "interviewer" is Kripke's assistant, so the questions are clearly pre-agreed on by him. Also, it is kind of interesting to know what he thinks of this fictional identity.
@@firstal3799 The term "Kripkenstein" was coined because his interpretation of Wittgenstein was revolutionary. I don't think his interpretation is correct, but it was certainly revolutionary-it redirected a whole subfield of philosophy-and also deep in the sense that it illuminates philosophical issues that were otherwise being passed over. There's also Kripke semantics (they generally don't name your ideas after you unless your ideas were fairly revolutionary) and his work with modality. Have you ever read his work? _Naming and Necessity_ would be a good place to start. Regardless of the merit of his ideas, he certainly isn't ordinary. Even if all he was is an early beginner, being an early beginner isn't ordinary. If it were, more 6 year olds would speak Hebrew.
I've tried to understand his Kripkenstein concept. I understood the thing about a skeptic's objection, but the followup/solution thing is Chinese to me. Whether on the Wikipedia page or other web pages
No one owes you an explanation. Saul said he doesn’t mess with religion and he doesn’t like it. Now tell me good job or not. It doesn’t matter that the hodgepodge of misinformation out there says that kripke is the cream of the crop. He certainly knows Norman wildberger and that dude is the truth. Be kind going forward and you’ll be okay.
wait, im reading that too for a college course and am intrested to hear why you say that? i’m like super young and new to philosophy (only 17) and have enjoyed reading kripke, so i’m fascinated and really want to know what about him u don’t like. maybe i can bring it up to my professor. anyway, yea just intrested to hear your thoughts, have a great day!
Love Saul Kripke! A living legend, in my opinion.
True
He’s dead
Not anymore 😢
@@mrepix8287 Truly sad. He was a good man.
@@JoseSanchez-zo5tb he was a brilliant philosopher, one of the best in his time, but as man, I dunno...You know he a was a serial stalker of college girls to the extent that the Uni had to isolate his office away from dorms, right? :)
"Kripkenstein" sounds like the ship you never knew you wanted
Also, pro tip: 1.25/1.5x playback is life
Definitely has a voice for writing
Rest In Peace Saul.
Your idea is quite influenced on whole philosophy sphere. Thank you for contributions.
Thank you for this post of such a wonderful interview with such a Giant of Philosophy
Kripke is a legend, and I love him!
My overall comment on this (rather than on any detail) is that I'm surprised about how critical Kripke is of Wittgenstein. I haven't really ever followed the whole "Kripkenstein" debate; though I always took Kripke to be a "follower" of Wittgenstein, if with a few added quibbles here and there.
Kripke reabilitated metaphysics in analytic philosophy, wherease Wittgenstein thought metaphysics was just linguistic nonsense
he seems to be a genuinely fine human being
Saul Kripke is one of the best philosophers of all time. One of the most extravagantly enlightening ideas of his is that once an object is "baptized" with the first use (the origin) of its name, it more reliably denotes that individual than any of the properties the individual might acquire during a lifetime that might evolve in multiple possible ways. Another one related to the one stated prior is that the rigidity of a proper name is only in connection with its early date. Any property that was established in the past is now unchangeable-required by having the quality of taking effect from a date in the past?-even if it could have been otherwise-so it too might serve as a rigid designator. The only absolute identity is the recognition of one's potential and qualities as an individual, in particular relating to the types of settings in which people are busy and active. All things are identical only to the group of objects previously mentioned as the subject of the unit of grammatical organization said to consist of that subject mentioned in the foregoing and a predicate.
wut
That isn’t what the Bible says
We love and remember you Saul. We miss you.
the autobio at the beginning felt like babe ruth informing us he's a baseball player.
this was a really good interview!
The interviewer asked a lot of boring questions, but at 7:25 Kripke starts to talk about what he and not Kripkenstein (Wittgenstein, as he struck Kripke) thinks of the sceptical solution to the sceptical paradox, until he is shut off by the interviewer.
Thank you for uploading, Greetings from India 🇮🇳🐄 (Superpower by 2025)
Thank you so much
He's probably issuing a Italian edition of "In Certainty", a'ma right?
Arguably the most intelligent human alive today.
Leon Parkin either him or Edward Witten
@@JH-ri5ty or terry tao
I'm smarter
that's very arguable
Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder are way smarter
Kripke's argument is better than Wittgenstein's.
A J Ayer disposed of Wittgenstein's actual private language argument, such as it can be understood.
I'm pretty interested in that A J Ayer argument. In what essay/book of his can I find it?
I
the only interpretation of wittgenstein is that he was essentially sauron
How tasteless one should be to waste an interview with Saul Kripke on questions such as "do you object to 'Kripkenstein'?"! Seriously?
ThePhilosopher how?
Yeah, I see your point. It would be nice, instead, to tease out points Kripke's mentioned in passing, but not elaborated on. E.g., at the outset of N&N, Kripke claims that unicorns not only don't exist, they necessarily don't exist. But he lacked time in the lectures to elaborate :(
ThePhilosopher: Why is it "tasteless"? I don't understand. Talk of 'Kripkenstein' was all the rage in analytic philosophy for around a decade or even more (say, in the 1980s) - at least in subsections of analytic philosophy... Besides which, the reference to "Kripkenstein" is only a small part of the interview.
@@timchambers170 See 'Naming and Necessity Revisited' - videos are available online.
Actually, the "interviewer" is Kripke's assistant, so the questions are clearly pre-agreed on by him. Also, it is kind of interesting to know what he thinks of this fictional identity.
The Godfather.
of lasagna you mean? psshh
Why "the godfather"?
His first language is Yiddish?
It is not but he taught himself Hebrew at 6 among other things at a young age. Dude was a straight up genius.
What does he say that is so deep or revolutionary ? He strikes me ordinary. He was just an early beginner
@@firstal3799 The term "Kripkenstein" was coined because his interpretation of Wittgenstein was revolutionary. I don't think his interpretation is correct, but it was certainly revolutionary-it redirected a whole subfield of philosophy-and also deep in the sense that it illuminates philosophical issues that were otherwise being passed over. There's also Kripke semantics (they generally don't name your ideas after you unless your ideas were fairly revolutionary) and his work with modality. Have you ever read his work? _Naming and Necessity_ would be a good place to start.
Regardless of the merit of his ideas, he certainly isn't ordinary. Even if all he was is an early beginner, being an early beginner isn't ordinary. If it were, more 6 year olds would speak Hebrew.
His voice sounded like his ideas
Eight dislike for a guilty Hodgetwins.
This discussion goes nowhere.
I've tried to understand his Kripkenstein concept. I understood the thing about a skeptic's objection, but the followup/solution thing is Chinese to me. Whether on the Wikipedia page or other web pages
did he believe in god
why he us not famous like william lane craig
i never heard about this guy
im from india
who is he explain ❤
No one owes you an explanation. Saul said he doesn’t mess with religion and he doesn’t like it. Now tell me good job or not. It doesn’t matter that the hodgepodge of misinformation out there says that kripke is the cream of the crop. He certainly knows Norman wildberger and that dude is the truth. Be kind going forward and you’ll be okay.
Having read Naming and Necessity I wanted to be charitable but listening to this now I understand this guy was a clown
wait, im reading that too for a college course and am intrested to hear why you say that? i’m like super young and new to philosophy (only 17) and have enjoyed reading kripke, so i’m fascinated and really want to know what about him u don’t like. maybe i can bring it up to my professor. anyway, yea just intrested to hear your thoughts, have a great day!