何种自然种类词理论更合理?--穆勒与克里普克理论之比较

What kind of theory of natural kind terms is more reasonable?——A comparison between Mill's and Kripke's theory

克里普克在《命名与必然性》中讨论自然种类词时,拒绝接受穆勒关于普遍名称的理论。他认为:自然种类词也像专名一样是严格指示词,而穆勒关于普遍名称的说明不适用于自然种类词。其实,穆勒对于自然种类词的讨论远不止克里普克所认为的那样,克里普克对于穆勒关于自然种类词思想的总结应该说是不完全的。基于《逻辑体系》一书,阐述和澄清穆勒的自然种类词理论,并且说明相较于克里普克的观点,穆勒的自然种类词理论更合理。

Kripke refused to accept Mill,s theory of natural kind terms when He discussed them in Naming and Necessity.He thought that natural kind terms like proper names were rigid designators and that Mill on general names didn,t apply in natural kind terms.The idea of Mill on natural kind terms is far more than Kripke’s thought.Kripke,s summary should be said that this is not enough.Based on the book of Mill A System of Logic,the author tries to explain and clarifies Mill,s theory of natural kind terms,then summarizes that Mill s theory on natural kind terms is more reasonable than Kripke’s theory.