Philosophy 1760
Second Short Paper
Below, you will find a series of questions about the first lecture of Naming and Necessity. Choose one
group of questions and write a short (3-5 page, maximum of 1500 words) paper addressing the questions
posed.
The Questions
1. In the first lecture of Naming and Necessity, Kripke offers an argument against a form of
the ‘Description Theory of Names’. Explain this argument. Explain further why Kripke
needs to introduce the distinction between necessity and apriority in order to give this
argument.
2. Kripke takes the argument he gives in the first lecture to refute only one particular form of
the ‘Description Theory of Names’, a form he attributes to Russell. What textual basis
might there be for attributing this view to the Russell of “On Denoting” and “Knowledge
By Acquaintance and Knowledge By Description”? Russell does not, in either of those
papers, express a view about whether such statements as “St Anne was the mother of
Mary” are necessary. Why should one suppose he is committed to the that they are? Why,
for that matter, should anyone be committed to the view that they are?
3. One way to understand the Description Theory of Names is as the view that proper names
abbreviate definite descriptions. But there are different views about how descriptions
themselves work. Consider the views of Russell, Strawson, and Donnellan: What sorts of
views about proper names would emerge from the different forms of the ‘Description
Theory’ one would get by marrying it to these different accounts of descriptions? How do
these views relate to the different forms of the Description Theory discussed by Kripke?
4. What is the relationship between Kripke’s notion of rigidity and the central thesis of
Kaplan’s paper “Dthat”, i.e.: “that some or all of the denoting phrases used in an utterance
should not be considered part of the content of what is said but should rather be thought of
as contextual features which help us to interpret the actual physical utterance has having a
certain content”?