论模态论证:为克里普克一辩——向陈波教授请教  

In Defence of Kripke’s Modal Argument:A discussion with Professor Chen Bo

作　　者：胡扬[1] 

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学

出　　处：《哲学分析》2013年第2期67-81,198,共15页Philosophical Analysis

摘　　要：陈波教授对模态论证的挑战存在三个问题。严格指号的直观测试所暴露的"论题跨界"问题并不存在,这个问题实际上是由他对直观测试的过度概括误导出来的。"In@"是一个语用预设,我们不能通过为限定描述语添加"in@"算子使其语义上与对应的专名等值。专名在他的语境下并没有因为多种辖域读法的存在,使包含此专名在内的语句造成理解上的歧义,而对应的限定描述语会在多种读法下造成这种歧义,因此专名与对应的限定描述语在这点上根本不同。There are three problems of Professor Chen Bo’ s challenge to Kripke’s modal argument.Intuitive test for rigid designation does not have 'Thesis-Jumping',which is revealed by Professor Chen Bo.'Thesis-Jumping' problem actually results from his misunderstanding of Kripke’s intuitive test.Any definite description plus 'in @' is not semantically equal to any corresponding proper name,because 'in @' is a pragmatic presupposition.In Professor Chen Bo’ arguments,multiple-scope readings of proper name do not give rise to the semantic ambiguity of a sentence.This is different from the situation of the multiple-scope readings of definite description.

关 键 词：模态论证 严格指号 论题跨界 专名的多种读法 

分 类 号：B812[哲学宗教—逻辑学]