How to refrain from answering Kripke’s puzzle
- 237 Downloads
In this paper, I investigate the prospects for using the distinction between rejection and denial to resolve Saul Kripke’s puzzle about belief. One puzzle Kripke presents in “A Puzzle About Belief” poses what would have seemed a fairly straightforward question about the beliefs of the bilingual Pierre, who is disposed to sincerely and reflectively assent to the French sentence “Londres est jolie”, but not to the English sentence “London is pretty”, both of which he understands perfectly well. The question to be answered is whether Pierre believes that London is pretty, and Kripke argues, of each answer, that it is unacceptable. On my proposal, either answer to the question is to be rejected, but neither answer is to be denied, using the resource of partially-defined predicates. After demonstrating how this serves as a solution to the puzzle, I illustrate some philosophical motivations—independent of Kripke’s puzzle—for adopting a view on which belief is a partially defined predicate. I conclude that there are decent prospects for the proposed response to Kripke’s puzzle.
KeywordsKripke’s puzzle Belief Dispositional account of belief Partially-defined predicates Rejection Denial Propositional attitudes Belief-ascriptions
Many thanks to David Braun, Scott Soames, and Mark Schroeder for immensely helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to Nathan Salmon for some enlightening discussions of Kripke’s puzzle, and to several anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback.
- Atlas, J. (2004). Presupposition. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Crimmins, M. (1992). Talk about beliefs. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fara, M. (2009). Dispositions. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer Edition), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/dispositions/.
- Fine, K. (2009). Semantic relationism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
- Frege, G. (1960). On sense and reference (orig. 1892) (Reprinted in Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).Google Scholar
- King, J. (2001). Complex demonstratives. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kripke, S. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
- Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- McGlone, M. (2007). Assertion, belief, and semantic content. Dissertation.Google Scholar
- Priest, G. (1987). In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
- Priest, G., & Berto, F. (2010). Dialetheism. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer Edition), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/dialetheism/.
- Salmon, N. (2002). Demonstrating and necessity. The Philosophical Review, 111(4), 497–537.Google Scholar
- Soames, S. (2004). Naming and asserting. In Z. Szabo (Ed.), Semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Soames, S. (2009). The possibility of partial definition. In R. Dietz & S. Moruzzi (Eds.), Cuts and clouds: Essays on the nature of vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar