Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2009, Vol. 4 Issue (3) : 454-469
Research articles
A naturalistic interpretation of the Kripkean modality
YE Feng ,
Department of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China;
Download: PDF(257 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract The Kripkean metaphysical modality (i.e. possibility and necessity) is one of the most important concepts in contemporary analytic philosophy and is the basis of many metaphysical speculations. These metaphysical speculations frequently commit to entities that do not belong to this physical universe, such as merely possible entities, abstract entities, mental entities or qualities not realizable by the physical, which seems to contradict naturalism or physicalism. This paper proposes a naturalistic interpretation of the Kripkean modality, as a naturalist’s response to these metaphysical speculations. It will show that naturalism can accommodate the Kripkean metaphysical modality. In particular, it will show that naturalism can help to resolve the puzzles surrounding Kripke’s a posteriori necessary propositions and a priori contingent propositions.
Keywords philosophy of language      naturalism      physicalism      metaphysical modality      Kripke      
Issue Date: 05 September 2009
 Cite this article:   
YE Feng. A naturalistic interpretation of the Kripkean modality[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(3): 454-469.
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
YE Feng
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] CAI Weixin. Causal Exclusion and Causal Autonomism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 402-419.
[2] DONG Zili. Causal Relevance of Mental Properties: A Refutation of Kim’s Exclusion Argument[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 633-647.
[3] CHEN Yajun. Between Darwin and Hegel: On Dewey’s Concept of Experience[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 104-119.
[4] GAO Kun. A Naturalistic Look into Maddy’s Naturalistic Philosophy of Mathematics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 137-151.
[5] XU Difei. Is Intuition Necessary for Defending Platonism?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(3): 492-509.
[6] MOU Bo. On the Double-Reference Character of “Hexagram” Names in the Yijing: Engaging Fregean&Kripkean Approaches to the Issue of How Reference Is Possible[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(4): 523-537.
[7] GUO Peng. The Semantic Function of Descriptions Associated with Proper Names: Comments on Kripke’s Criticism of Searle[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 268-279.
[8] Jonathan Israel. The Battle over Confucius and Classical Chinese Philosophy in European Early Enlightenment Thought (1670-1730)[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 183-198.
[9] YE Feng. Some Naturalistic Comments on Frege’s Philosophy of Mathematics[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(3): 378-403.
[10] ZHAO Yanyan. The Knowledge Argument against Physicalism: Its Proponents and Its Opponents[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(2): 304-316.
[11] Andrei A. BUCKAREFF. Intralevel Mental Causation[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(3): 402-425.
[12] PENG Chuanhua. A New Discourse on Xunzi’s Philosophy of Language[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(2): 193-216.
[13] TIAN Xiaofei, . The philosophy of scientific practice in naturalist thought: Its approaches and problems[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2009, 4(4): 589-603.
[14] WANG Huaping, SHENG Xiaoming. Cooperative naturalism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 601-613.
[15] Cong Hangqing, Cheng Xiaodong. Pragmatic commitments to naturalized epistemology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2006, 1(3): 477-490.
Full text