Sual Kripke 1 [Raphael Nunziata]

“So the analysis of singular existence statements mentioned above will have to be given up, unless it is established by some special argument, independent of a general theory of the meaning of names; and the same applies to identify statements. In any case, I think it’s false that ‘Moses exists’ means that at all. So we won’t have to see if such a special argument can be drawn up.” (Kripke 2011, 33)

The quote states and argues how names and descriptions that are non existence cannot be analyzed, because there is no meaning.  For example, if the name Plato or description acting as a name for Plato has no meaning to a philosopher or object then nothing can be analyzed. Even if some analysis were derived from a non existent statement, this would imply existence and therefore a contradiction.

My reasons for agreement is that it is simple to see the validty and also it is easy to see a contradiction if Kripke were false. Where if Kripke were false then existence could be derived from the non existent.

 “They think that if something belongs to the realm of a priori knowledge, it couldn't possibly be known empirically. This is just a mistake. Something may belong in the realm of such statements that can be known priori but still may be known by particular people on the basis of experience” (Kripke 2011, 35).

The quote is concerned with how knowledge without experience can be know empirically and non empirically, where Kripke believes that knowledge can be both with and without experience in the same realm. The distinction Kripke makes is that knowledge can be both with and without experience; and not solidified to one category. For example, Kripke’s later example of a computer spiting out a prime number can be know with experience by belief of evidence from the computer or can be know without experience by the basis of calculations in determining if the number is prime (Kripke 2011, 35).

I chose this quote because the distinction of knowledge Kripke argues for, is still puzzling. Although Kripke example of a computer and primes sounds to be true, in both cases (of knowledge with and without experience), i’m unsure if computing calculations in your head is considered knowledge without experience—where the calculations it self, could be considered experience.