more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Although the statement that this table (if it exists at all) was not made of ice, is necessary, it certainly is not something that we know a priori.
Gist of Idea
It is necessary that this table is not made of ice, but we don't know it a priori
Source
Saul A. Kripke (Identity and Necessity [1971], p.180)
Book Ref
'Meaning and Reference', ed/tr. Moore,A.W. [OUP 1993], p.180
A Reaction
One of the key thoughts in modern philosophy. Kit Fine warns against treating it as a new and exciting toy, but it is a new and exciting toy. Scientific essentialism, which I so want to be true, is built on this proposal.
| 8856 | Quine's indispensability argument said arguments for abstracta were a posteriori [Quine, by Yablo] |
| 2796 | For Quine the only way to know a necessity is empirically [Quine, by Dancy,J] |
| 5476 | Essentialists say natural laws are in a new category: necessary a posteriori [Ellis] |
| 9174 | It is necessary that this table is not made of ice, but we don't know it a priori [Kripke] |
| 2408 | Kripke has demonstrated that some necessary truths are only knowable a posteriori [Kripke, by Chalmers] |
| 4960 | "'Hesperus' is 'Phosphorus'" is necessarily true, if it is true, but not known a priori [Kripke] |
| 4966 | Theoretical identities are between rigid designators, and so are necessary a posteriori [Kripke] |
| 14631 | How can you show the necessity of an a posteriori necessity, if it might turn out to be false? [Jackson] |
| 16421 | Critics say there are just an a priori necessary part, and an a posteriori contingent part [Stalnaker] |
| 15171 | The necessary a posteriori is statements either of identity or of essence [Sidelle] |