自然种类名称与严格性——克里普克通名理论的一个疑点

Natural Kind Names and Rigidity——A Doubtful Point in Kripke's Theory of General Names

克里普克在《命名与必然性》中就专名问题给出了较为完整且具说服力的论证,但随后他把这套专名的理论直接推广到自然种类名称的做法却是值得商榷的:一是因为克里普克的这种推广只是一种简单的套用,他未就自然种类名称本身的严格性给出充分的论证;二是因为克里普克所谈到的自然种类名称属于不同的语法和语义类型,如此复杂的情形不能像专名那样一概而论。本文试就这些问题加以研讨。

In Naming and Necessity,Kripke gave a comparatively complete and convincing argument about proper names,but his direct extension of the model of proper names to natural kind names is problematic.For one thing,the extension is only a mechanical application,and Kripke did not give his positive argument about the rigidity of natural kind names in detail;for another thing,Kripke's natural kind names belong to different syntax and semantic types,and it is not appropriate to put all of them into one model just like that of proper names.These problems are my concerns in this article.