Reference and Existence라는 책 154쪽 부근에서
크립키는 'Zeus exists'를 'The name "Zeus" has a referent'로
분석하는 metalinguistic analysis에 대해 논의 및 반박합니다.
154쪽에서 크립키는 다음과 같이 말합니다:
Things get even worse if one tries to analyze indirect discourse in this way. Suppose someone says 'The Greeks believed that there was such a divine being as Zeus,' or that 'Zeus existed.' Well, what are we saying that the Greeks believed? On the analysis in question we are saying that the Greeks believed that the name 'Zeus' had a referent. This I suppose is true in this particular case, but it is true only because the Greeks used the same name as we. For all we know, when we say 'The Greeks believed that Zeus existed,' it may be the case that the Greeks either used a different name, or that they didn't use any name at all. And we are not prejudging this question when we say that the Greeks believed that Zeus existed. Or if we say that such and such an atheistic Greek believed that Zeus didn't exist, again we don't mean that this atheistic Greek believed that the name 'Zeus' had no referent. He too may not have used the name 'Zeus,' or may not have used any name at all.
이 부분은 이해가 됩니다.
그런데 이 다음 부분이 이해가 잘 안 되네요.
One can't even analyze the first statement with safety as 'The Greeks believed that some name with the same reference as "Zeus" designated an existing entity.' This actually compounds the problem even more, rather than helping matters. For one has first to give an analysis of the statement 'Zeus exists,' and then just report it after the 'that' as the content of the Greek's belief. As in: 'There is some name with the same reference as "Zeus" and the Greeks believed its referent existed.' One can't, so to speak, move this content outside the scope of the belief context. (Besides, does 'Zeus doesn't exist' mean some name with the same reference as 'Zeus' has no reference ? What could that mean?) So, on this analysis, to say that the Greeks believed that Zeus exists is merely to say that the Greeks believed that some name with the same reference as 'Zeus' has a referent.
크립키의 요지는
- 'The Greeks believed that Zeus existed'를 'The Greeks believed that some name with the same reference as "Zeus" designated an existing entity'로 분석하는데에는 어려움이 많다.
- 왜냐하면 'Zeus exists'를 먼저 분석하고 그것을 'The Greeks believed that' 뒤에 두어야하기 때문이다. (For one has first to give an analysis of the statement 'Zeus exists,' and then just report it after the 'that' as the content of the Greek's belief.)
인 것 같은데
For one has first to give an analysis of the statement 'Zeus exists,' and then just report it after the 'that' as the content of the Greek's belief.
다음에 왜
As in: 'There is some name with the same reference as "Zeus" and the Greeks believed its referent existed.'
또 왜 그 다음에는
One can't, so to speak, move this content outside the scope of the belief context. (Besides, does 'Zeus doesn't exist' mean some name with the same reference as 'Zeus' has no reference ? What could that mean?)
이게 왜 나오는지, 여기서 'this content'는 뭘 말하는건지
감도 오질 않습니다.
이 페이지 해석 좀 도와주세요.
수정:
조금은 감이 오네요.
크립키의 요지는
'The Greeks believed that Zeus existed'를 'The Greeks believed that some name with the same reference as "Zeus" designated an existing entity'로 분석할 때, 그 뜻이 'There is some name with the same reference as "Zeus", and the Greeks believed that its referent existed' 일 수는 없으니 (One can't, so to speak, move this content outside the scope of the belief context) 이 분석에 따르면 'The Greeks believed that some name with the same reference as "Zeus" designated an existing entity'의 뜻이 'The Greeks believed that some name with the same reference as 'Zeus' has a referent.' 일 뿐이다
(수정2: 지금보니 이것도 틀렸군요)
인 것 같습니다. 그런데 아직 각 문장의 뜻은 이해가 잘 안 되네요.
혹시 각 문장을 인용하면서 더 매끄럽게 설명해주실 수 있는 분 계시면 부탁드리겠습니다.