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 Reference
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?