more on this theme     |     more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 4970

[filed under theme 10. Modality / A. Necessity / 7. Natural Necessity ]

Full Idea

My third lecture suggests that a good deal of what contemporary philosophy regards as mere physical necessity is actually necessary 'tout court'.

Clarification

'Tout court' (Fr) means 'simply'

Gist of Idea

What is often held to be mere physical necessity is actually metaphysical necessity

Source

Saul A. Kripke (Naming and Necessity notes and addenda [1972], Add (g))

Book Ref

Kripke,Saul: 'Naming and Necessity' [Blackwell 1980], p.164


A Reaction

This huge claim rides in on the back of Kripke's very useful clarifications. It is the 'new essentialism', and seems to me untenable in this form. There is no answer to Hume's request for evidence of necessity. Why can't essences (and laws) change?