I agree with Kripke when he talks about how some things simply do not have a specific name, but only what they are referred to as which is not a specific word. He mentions the concept of heat and how we identify heat by its giving of a certain sensation which we know simply as the 'sensation of heat' (Kripke 1970, pg. 131). Kripke brings up a good point here when he mentions that some things are known by their sensations, although it can go deeper than just that.
I somewhat disagree with the "cluster concept" because I think the overall concept may be on the right track, but I think there are too many specific instances where it gets a little blurry to be 100% successful. Kripke talks about a 3-legged tiger and how by the definition of a tiger, there cannot be a 3-legged tiger, which we all know to be false by common sense, there can be a 3-legged tiger. He talks about how it, much like the other part where he talks about gold not being yellow, but really blue due to an optical illusion of sorts, may be an optical illusion and that all tigers may have 3 legs because this one obviously does, and I am not sure that I completely agree with Kripke when he talks about this possibility of this optical illusion (Kripke 1970, pg. 119-120).
One question I might be a little shaky on is this whole idea of an optical illusion Kripke talks about. Does he mean the physical appearance to our eye, or does he mean something more along the lines of a mind illusion of sorts that is something non-physical?
Although I do disagree with Kripke's assumption that by definition of a tiger, there cannot be a three legged tiger despite the fact that we do see 3 legged tigers. I am wondering though, what if Kripke meant a tiger which should have four legs can exist (which is true), however, it cannot exist that a 3 legged tiger can exist by definition?
ReplyDelete