Talk:Saul Kripke

message: Although the sections on modal logic seem fine as far as I can tell, they might be kind of overwhelming to someone looking for an overview of Kripke's work. Could it be an idea to make this section into a separate article, and to keep the sections shorter in the Kripke article?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.155.226 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article on Kripke's modal logic?

message: Why is there nothing here on Kripke's "A Puzzle About Belief" paper?  It's listed in the list of his publications, but I figure it should have a little paragraph summarizing it a bit.  There's pretty much nothing else on Wikipedia about the puzzle.  Any objections to having something here? -- Jaymay 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Puzzle about belief

message: Is it "krip-ka" or "krip-kee"? -- FP <talk><edits> 14:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
krip-kee (sounds like "key") -- User: Astragal
Is this correct? I've heard both ways, but the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd edn 2005) has the pronunciation down as "krɪpkə", using the IPA, i.e. more like "krip-ka". Alibangbang (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite, but in the linked lecture "The meaning of I" the presenter uses Krip-kee too. 19:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: I'm in good faith with the two edits by User:69.86.61.207, but I can't find any info on the internet to back up the claims.  I'm just assuming the user is probably a student of Kripke's (the ip is a location in New Yohttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngrk, where Kripke teaches).  Here are the two edits (italicized):
* Sep 20: (Kripke was roomates) (for a short time) with Theodore Kaczynski (The Unabomber)
* Sep 1: Kripke married (and recently divorced) Margaret Gilbert
Probably no big deal, but I just want to make sure.
--FranksValli 01:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is another example of loaded unsourced material and I guess I'm surprised it's stayed this long.  Speaking to Kripke is great, but we really need published citations - or else, just leave the information out (which accomplishes the same goal).  Further, there is no reason to pull Kripke's family (divorced or otherwise) into the biography without their permission.  Since some people regard breaking of marriage vows as a negative, to state someone is divorcing when it's not clear whether they are or are not, and to further introduce the name of another, non-notable (and therefore indefensible-on-Wikipedia) person into the article is not ethical.  At least not by the ethics of my profession.--Levalley (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:69.86.61.207]] 

message: A picture would be nice. I've found an uploaded picture, but for some reason, it isn't here on WP anymore. 70.111.251.203 19:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably copyrighted. There are several galleries of public-domain philosopher photos on the Web. I'll take a look.--Lacatosias 08:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Kripke 

message: does somebody see any value in the recerntly returned link described "a lot of kripke's pictures"? all i could find there is an uncomfortable site, containing one page with a jpg of 129 photos of the conference participants, which i guess at some point shows some kripke.trespassers william 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics link 

message: Now that 21 year-old user Thesilverbail has reverted my edits, we can all go back to reading that Kripke's influence was substantial and considerable. Even though most of Kripke's work is said to exist only in transcripts and on tapes, we can be sure that there is justification for using adjectives like immensely, significantly, and influential. We will take Thesilverbail's word that Kripke is extensively referred to and has made interesting contributions. We don't have to curb our enthusiasm because we now realize that hyperbole is permitted in a Wikipedia article. Maybe  Saul Kripke is the greatest philosopher of our time, if not all time.Lestrade 12:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saul Kripke Fan Club

message: Want to be an analytic philosopher?  Just have a daft obsession with the use of words.
As to the 'private language argument' which has generated so much academic literature, I can come up with at least 100 more important questions to be considered if I spent time on it.  Hundreds of years from now, people will look at the discussion on whether we can have private languages as we look upon medieval debates as to how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
:Having a fun ego trip?  What does this have to do with the article here, anyway?
::And what's wrong with angels standing on a head of a pin? Apart from the theological question (which you apparently don't appreciate), it's another way of asking "how many points can have the same coordinates". 37.47.232.231 (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Rants

message: This article places Kripke in Category:Wittgensteinian_philosophers.  However, I would question the idea Kripke is a Wittgensteinian philosopher.  He has cited W. a few times in his work, but this is not unusual as many, many philosophers who aren't Wittgensteinians do so.  His only sustained treatment of Wittgenstein is in his book 'W. on Rules and Private Language', and this is widely considered to be a very bad interpretation of W.'s remarks in the Philosophical Investigations, and hardly Wittgensteinian.  His work is certainly of high import in analytic philosophy, but I would argue (and I think I have the force of Wittgenstein scholars behind me) that he is not a Wittgensteinian philosopher in the least.
That said, I'm going to remove Kripke from this category.  If anyone really has a problem with this, let me know here and we'll discuss it here. Enigma00 (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a philosopher to be Wittgensteinian, he would have to philosophize in Wittgenstein's manner. Wittgenstein had different ways, however, of philosophizing at different times of his life. A Wittgensteinian might also be one who agreed with Wittgenstein on the topics that interested Wittgenstein. In either case, Kripke is not a Wittgensteinian philosopher.Lestrade (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the category encyclopedic at all?  I've commented at :Category talk:Wittgensteinian philosophers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Wittgensteinian Philosopher? 

message: First, it just is poor article-writing to have these brief, almost incoherent or incomplete sections appended to an otherwise philosophical article.  I do not personally doubt that Kripke has religious views, since no one has corrected that - but I do believe that if he didn't say this in a publication of some kind, it doesn't belong here.  The quote from Kripke implies that he's not a materialist (and therefore, if one is a dualist, implies he's an idealist) but being an idealist doesn't make one devoutly Jewish.  I'm not sure that statements regarding people's dietary practices or what religion they belong to are relevant in academic biographies, but if the information is to be there, I want citations (as I do for everything).  Same goes for his lectures on "I" - that section really dangles and weakens the whole article.  Having read quite a bit about Kripke and his life, btw, I find both of these sections a factual stretch.  Therefore, again, the need for citations.--Levalley (talk) 05:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious views and other short sections 

message: I would expect that the requested citation in sentence 1 would cover all the rest of the points in the section.  I note a lack of parallelism/consistency among the various "work" sections on academic pages.  I'm going to consider this article as standard, in the way it uses this section, but comment is welcome.--Levalley (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work section 

message: While I agree it's well known (I'm in SoCal) that certain people have distributed Kripke's unpublished manuscripts without his permission, if we're going to claim such a thing, we need citations beyond my (or anyone else's) personal knowledge.  Anyone want to publish this somewhere?  I'd like to see what happens if you do.  But otherwise, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, either.--Levalley (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note, the claims about Kripke plagiarizing Wittgenstein are published, so we can mention them.  I won't edit it until I have the citations on hand in a form I can cut and paste, but the citations are there.--Levalley (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of intellectual property violations need substantiation 

message: Insofar as I can understand them, they are well done and unlike many Wikis on philosophy, include proper wikification.  The bracketed words are appropriate.  The article makes sense all through its logic sections, then tends to fall apart on the later sections.  So, kudos to the logic people.--Levalley (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good work on the logic sections 

message: Again, this bio is one of the better bios of living academic philosophers.  In particular, it does what all good articles should do and shows that the subject is cited in major secondary sources.  It does this in the section Naming and Necessity, when it rightfully brings in Quentin Smith's work (and doesn't just say something like:  Kripke is influental on Quentin Smith).  The names of persons not related to the subject should not be introduced unless there are citations to show their relationship and in general, it's best to mention influences on the subject (with citations).  Some citations are still needed in the top sections.  There's a problem with headers.  The section after Naming and Necessity still appears to be about Naming and Necessity as far as I can tell.  The first paragraph of the next section needs to be moved up.  That leaves the next section looking thin.--Levalley (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some needed work on this article

message: According to the last sentence of the first paragraph "a recent poll conducted by philosophers ranked Kripke among the top ten most important philosophers of the past 200 years." The reference directs to a poll on the "Leiter Reports" blog (So who *is* the most important philosopher of the past 200 years?. As far as I can see, the poll was conducted by a single philosopher, professor Brian Leiter. Also, it is not clear by reading the page whether the voters were philosophers, academics, or unknown online visitors. --D15724C710N (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited it to be "among" rather than "by philosophers." I'm fairly certain this is true. Grunge6910 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's something unsettling about the poll. Heidegger at 16th, and Frege at 2nd? I'd much prefer the poll conducted amongst American teachers of philosophy at the university level by Donald Lackey in The Philosophical Forum 1999:4, which - while staying with the overall message that Kripke is widely respected - employs a sounder (in my view) methodology. Regards, Wittgendegger (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nearly all of the philosophy done in the english-speaking world is done in the analytic tradition. In that regard, Frege is leaps-and-bounds ahead of Heidegger. Perhaps not in the continental tradition, but since this poll was probably conducted among philosophers in the analytic tradition, it should be no surprise that Frege's viewed much more importantly than Heidegger. He's the founder of the analytic tradition, and the inventor of the logic upon which it's grounded. It surprising that Frege isn't number 1 on this ranking imo. But i think that's mainly due to more people not knowing how important Frege is, and, imo, not knowing that he's been drastically more influential than Wittgenstein. Xenfreak (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The poll by Brian Leiter 

message: That's one of the questions which I was asking when I read this. Surely fairly basic biographical information?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.50.168 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: KRIP-key. However I don't have a published source on this. It's just the way all philosophers, including ones who knew him personally said it. 47.157.92.143 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you pronounce his name? 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://fivebooks.com/interviews/scott-soames-on-philosophy-language
*:Triggered by \bfivebooks\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: How did he avoid being drafted into the Army and sent to Viet Nam?173.72.111.239 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nam

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Saul Kripke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011191807/http://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Kripke2.doc to https://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Kripke2.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011191807/http://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Kripke2.doc to https://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Kripke2.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922181235/http://www.vanleer.org.il/eng/videoShow.asp?id=317 to http://www.vanleer.org.il/eng/videoShow.asp?id=317
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922181235/http://www.vanleer.org.il/eng/videoShow.asp?id=317 to http://www.vanleer.org.il/eng/videoShow.asp?id=317
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: May we have a citation for the work of Tim Carlson referred to? 31.52.255.78 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Carlson