/kripke/
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Tell me about the moment it "clicked" for you.
Has it changed the way you approach philosophy?
Do you disagree with the arguments in "naming and necessity"? If so why?
At the moment I'm more interested in modalities as adjoint functors in dependently typed (programming) languages.
I started Kripkes book years ago, but put it down. I've since then found out he's one of those literal (literal) autists (it's a pain to hear him talk) and it kind of takes from my potential admiration
>>8032867
He writes very clearly though. Yeah I can't listen to him speak without squirming either, he came to my uni a few weeks back and he looked homeless.
I suggest you pick it up again, but it's hard to follow without having read Locke, Kant, Hume, etc and impossible to follow without having read at least Frege and Russell
100% worth it though
>nearly anything, granted it abides standards of well-formedness and meaningfulness, can be translated to formal languages
>properties and limitations of natural languages (vagueness, ambiguity) and first-order logic (nonfirstorderizability, etc.)
>translating formulae in and out of two different formal languages (classical -> intuitionist and vice versa, say)
>syntax vs semantics distinction
>type vs token distinction
>object language vs metalanguage distinction
>>8032839
It's pretty clear that you've never read an article of his. His prose can rarely be labelled as "autistic" (I really don't care that you addressed his talks and not his prose). His more technical work (think his theory of truth where he tries to improve upon Tarskian hierarchy of metalanguages and truth predicates), of which N&N it isn't, are so much more pleasing to read if you have the right background.
the GOAT
>>8032839
i hate analytic philosophy
its a snooze fest and doesnt help anyone learn anything
>>8033467
>doesnt help anyone learn anything
>>8033467
How would you know when you've never read any?
>>8032916
Is modality de re and de dicto just a reformulation of Aristotle's primary and secondary substance?
>>8032916
>>nearly anything, granted it abides standards of well-formedness and meaningfulness, can be translated to formal languages
people still believe this and have faith in the formal languages. Wow, what a hack we have here
>>8032867
>modalities as adjoint functors in dependently typed (programming) languages
sounds kinda interesting. Can you sketch the basic idea for someone who knows some type theory and the usual kripke semantics and neighborhood semantics for modal logics, but doesn't know much category theory? Any interesting advantages of this approach?
>>8034869
>adjoint functors in dependently typed
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adjoint+modality
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adjoint+modality
>>8035898
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/modal+type
>>8033869
I'm not familiar with the issue but I wouldn't be surprised if it was, as ideas of possibility and necessity did originate in Aristotle.
>>8033869
No, the two distinctions are unrelated.
Modality is already a fantasy.
Really liked Naming and Necessity,
though I disagree with Kripke's reading of Wittgenstein.
I'm a necessitist and an eternalist (there is only a single "possible" and thus necessary n-dimensional block world that's our universe) so I basically disagree with everything he says. I think modality has more to do with humans' capability to entertain alternate world histories/future possibilities than there actually being any genuine, objective alternatives to how the world is.
>>8036408
Care to explain?
Aristotle says that secondary substance is of
Primary is said of
Sounded to me kinda similar
