more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 4963

[filed under theme 26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 5. Reference to Natural Kinds ]

Full Idea

Bear in mind the contrast between the a priori but perhaps contingent properties carried with a natural kind term, given by the way its reference was fixed, and the analytic (and hence necessary) properties a term may carry, given by its meaning.

Gist of Idea

The properties that fix reference are contingent, the properties involving meaning are necessary

Source

Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity lectures [1970], Lecture 3)

Book Ref

Kripke,Saul: 'Naming and Necessity' [Blackwell 1980], p.135


A Reaction

The second half of this is the 'new essentialism'. Complex. We need to distinguish 'reference' from 'definition'. The 'analytic properties' seem to be the definition, but we sometimes change our definitions (e.g. of units of time).


The 13 ideas with the same theme [how language terms refer to natural kinds]:

The names of all the types of creature were given forever by Adam [Anon (Tor)]
Express natural kinds as a posteriori predicate connections, not as singular terms [Putnam, by Mackie,P]
Natural kind stereotypes are 'strong' (obvious, like tiger) or 'weak' (obscure, like molybdenum) [Putnam]
"Water" is a natural kind term, but "H2O" is a description [Putnam]
The cause of a usage determines meaning, but why is the microstructure of water relevant? [Davidson]
The properties that fix reference are contingent, the properties involving meaning are necessary [Kripke]
Terms for natural kinds are very close to proper names [Kripke]
Nothing in the direct theory of reference blocks anti-essentialism; water structure might have been different [Salmon,N]
Nouns seem to invoke stable kinds more than predicates do [Gelman]
Nominal essence of a natural kind is the features that make it fit its name [Bird]
Jadeite and nephrite are superficially identical, but have different composition [Bird]
Reference to scientific terms is by explanatory role, not by descriptions [Bird]
Should vernacular classifications ever be counted as natural kind terms? [Koslicki]