Two Notes on Saul Kripke's Reference and Existence

• Published in: The Philosophical forum Vol. 46; no. 4; pp. 421 - 432
• Main Author: Earle, William James
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.2015
• Subjects: Dogs; Philosophy
• ISSN: 0031-806X; 1467-9191
• DOI: 10.1111/phil.12087

According to Saul Kripke, not only are there no unicorns, there can't be any. 2 This is discouraging news to those who still entertain fantasies of discovery and surprising news to those who--still--hold a more-or-less commonsensical view of concept instantiation. Here is what I think the common sense view is. Dogs are supposed to be a certain kind of animal and it turns out there are lots of them because there are lots of instances that satisfy the specification. There can also be "fools dogs," items that might be taken to be dogs but turn out not to be--for example, African Wild Dogs, which belong to the genus Lycaon, not the genus Canis. It is certainly possible that, at a stage when we were guided by visual stereotypes, we made mistakes and grouped animals together that, with greater zoological expertise, we see should be kept separate. Although "dog" names a natural kind like "water" or "Higgs Boson," we have of course conceptions of many things that are not natural kinds which also may or may not be exemplified. "Honest politician" is one such. Very cynical people think there are no exemplars, but it would, I think, be generally admitted that there are "fools honest politicians" who attempt to make, and often succeed in making, the detection of their dishonesty difficult.