A Comparative Study of Saul Kripke and Allameh Tabatabaei’s Views on the Theory of Reference and the Individual Essence

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Student in Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Faculty of Theology, Shiraz University

2 Associate Professor, Shiraz university, Faculty of Theology:

Abstract

Believing in the individual essence of things, as an ontological issue, has its roots in Greek philosophers’ views. Aristotelian essentialism proves essential attributes for objects, according to which, the essence of the objects depends on their attributes. If such features change, objects will perish. Implementing his reference theory, Kripke shows that proper names are rigid designators, i.e.; their referents are fixed in all possible worlds, or, in these referents, there is something that remains constant in all cases. This results in proving the individual essence of things.
Comparing Kripke’s and Allameh’s views, as well as using an analytical-comparative method, we try to clarify the essentialism in the frameworks provided by Analytical Philosophy and Islamic Philosophy regarding Kripke’s and Allameh Tabatabaie’s views.
According to Allameh, Individual essence comes into existence through essentialism in Islamic tradition. Allameh and Kripke’s views are similar in the Individual essence of objects; however, because of belonging to two different tradition of philosophy, they disagree in other fundamental aspects.

Keywords

References

  1. 1. ابن سینا، حسین بن عبدالله،‌ الاشارات و التنبیهات، مع الشرح للمحقق الطوسی، قم، نشرالبلاغه، 1375.

    1. راسل، برتراند، «توصیف‌ها»، ترجمۀ محمدعلی حجتی، ارغنون، شمارۀ 7و 8، پاییز و زمستان 1394.
    2. طباطبائی، سیدمحمدحسین، اصول فلسفه و روش رئالیسم، تهران، صدرا، 1390.
    3. ــــــــــــــــــــــــ ، بدایه الحکمه، قم، موسسه نشر اسلامی جامعه مدرسین حوزه علمیه قم، 1420ق.

    5 . ــــــــــــــــــــــــ ، رساله البرهان (مجموعه رسائل علامه طباطبایی)، ترجمۀ: همایون همتی، چاپ اول، قم، بوستان کتاب قم، 1387.

    1. ــــــــــــــــــــــــ ، نهایه الحکمه، قم، النشر الاسلامی، 1382.
    2. فرگه، گوتلوب «دربارۀ معنا و مصداق»، ترجمۀ منوچهر بدیعی، فرهنگ کتاب دوم و سوم، بهار و تابستان 1367.
    3. کانت، ایمانوئل، نقد عقل محض، ترجمۀ بهروز نظری، تهران، ققنوس، 1394.

    9.کریپکی، سول، نام­گذاری و ضرورت، ترجمۀ کاوه لاجوردی، تهران، هرمس، 1397.

    1. لاریجانی، محمدصادق، فلسفۀ تحلیلی: دلالت، ضرورت، تهران، مرصاد، 1375.
    2. لایب نیتس، گتفرید ویلهلم، منادولوژی، ترجمه یحیی مهدوی، تهران، خوارزمی، 1375.
    3. Aristotle, Complete Works of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan, Barnes, Princeton, Princeton University Press,1995.
    4. Bradly, Raymond, Possible Worlds, Hackett Publishing, 1988.
    5. Frege, Gottlob, “on concept and object”, trans. P.T. Geach, from eds: peter Geach & Max Black, Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege, oxford, basil Blackwell, 1977.
    6. Hahn, Lewis Edvin and Slipp Arturm, "Essentialism And Reference" The philosophy of W.V. Quine, 1986.
    7. Kant, Immanuel, "Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics", Cambridge University Press, 4:265-4:280, pp. 15-31, 2004.
    8. Kripke, S, Naming and Necessity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980.
    9. Mill, J. S, A, System of Logic, London: Longman s, Green and Company, 1906.
    10. Plantinga, Alvin, The Nature of Necessity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974.
    11. Russell, Bertrand, “On Denoting", in Logical Knowledge,4th. Prt. ed. Marsh, R. C. Routledge, UK, 1956, PP.41-56, 1919.
    12. Sainsbury, mark, Philosophical Logic. p. 65-66. In” Philosophy” edited by A. C. Grayling. Oxford, 1996.
    13. Searle, John, “Proper Names”, Mind, New Series, P: 67-266, 1958.
    14. Wittgenstein. Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations, Oxford. Blackwell, 2001.
Philosophy and Kalam
Volume 55, Issue 1
September 2022
Pages 28-7

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics