论文部分内容阅读
通常认为克里普克否认专名有涵义与罗素认为专名有涵义的观点是根本对立的，其实不然。克里普克与罗素之所以对同一问题有不同回答，是因为他们讨论问题的立足点不同、侧重面不同。罗素侧重于讨论专名的语用涵义，即立足于现实世界这个语境中专名的涵义；克里普克则从可能世界这个角度，否认专名有涵义，他是从语义方面来否定专名涵义的。
Kripke is generally considered to have denied the notion of a proper name as fundamentally antithetical to Russell’s notion of a proper name, but it is not. The reason why Kripke and Russell respond differently to the same question is that they have different footholds in discussing the issues and focus on different aspects. Russell focused on discussing the pragmatic meaning of the proper name, that is, based on the meaning of the proper name in the context of the real world; Kripke denied the meaning of the proper name from the perspective of the possible world. He denied the semantics Name meaning.