Analytic Philosophy / Kripke on Necessity
What Water Had to Be: Kripke and the Secrets Hidden Inside Names
When you say 'water is H₂O,' you're not just reporting a discovery — you're saying something that could not possibly have been otherwise, and that distinction quietly dismantles two thousand years of philosophical assumption.
The Idea
For most of Western philosophy, necessity and knowability travelled together. If something was necessarily true — true in every possible world — you were supposed to be able to figure that out from your armchair, through reason alone. Empirical facts, discovered through science, were contingent: they happened to be true, but they could have turned out differently. Saul Kripke, lecturing at Princeton in 1970 (later published as 'Naming and Necessity'), blew this tidy arrangement apart. Kripke argued that proper names and natural kind terms — words like 'Aristotle,' 'gold,' or 'water' — are what he called rigid designators. They refer to the same thing in every possible world in which that thing exists, regardless of what properties it has in those worlds. When we say 'water,' we're not describing something as 'the clear, drinkable liquid in our rivers'; we're pointing at a specific stuff, and that pointing locks in permanently. This means that 'water is H₂O' is necessarily true — there's no possible world where water is something other than H₂O — even though we couldn't have known it without chemistry. Kripke's bombshell: necessary truths can be discovered a posteriori, through experience. The necessary and the knowable-by-reason are not the same category. They never were. We just assumed they were because the examples philosophers typically used happened to blur the two together.
In the World
Consider the identity of Hesperus and Phosphorus — the ancient names for what we thought were two distinct celestial objects, the 'evening star' and the 'morning star.' For centuries, people used these names to refer to different things. Then astronomers worked out that both names pointed to the same object: Venus. Now here's where Kripke gets precise in a way that is almost uncomfortable. The statement 'Hesperus is Phosphorus' is necessarily true. Venus couldn't have been two things; it was always one planet, regardless of how our ancestors tracked the sky. But nobody could have known this without observation. No amount of armchair reasoning would have settled it. So we have a truth that is both necessary (it holds across all possible worlds) and a posteriori (discoverable only through experience). This puzzled philosophers for decades because the dominant view, associated with Kant and sharpened by logical empiricists like the early Wittgenstein, held that a priori knowledge and necessary truth were essentially the same domain. Kripke showed, with the bluntness of a mathematician — which he essentially was, having published original work in modal logic at seventeen — that this was a conflation, not an insight. The evening star and the morning star always were Venus. The universe wasn't waiting for us to name it correctly before committing to that fact. Our ignorance was contingent. The reality was not.
Why It Matters
You might think this is a puzzle for specialists, but the shift Kripke introduced changes how you can think about knowledge and reality more broadly. It separates two questions we habitually collapse into one: 'Is this necessarily true?' and 'Can I know it without checking?' Those feel like they should have the same answer — but they don't have to. This has a quieter personal resonance. How often do we treat our current understanding of something as its essential nature — as if what we know exhausts what something is? Kripke's point is that the thing itself is more fixed, more definite, than our descriptions of it. The world has a kind of stubbornness that precedes our conceptual reach. There's something almost humbling in that. The names we use point beyond our knowledge of the things they name. Language can be more precise than we realise — locking on to a reality we only partially understand. Which means you can be referring accurately to something while being deeply wrong about what it is. That's a strange epistemic position to sit with, and a useful one.
A Question to Ponder
Is there something in your life — a person, a concept, a belief about yourself — where you might be pointing at the real thing, but describing it in ways that could turn out to be completely wrong?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable