İlahi Mahiyet ve Metafizik Zorunluluk Savunusu: Kripke’nin Referans Teorisi Bağlamında İlahiyatın İmkânı

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 56, 417 - 443, 25.03.2025

Kayhan Özaykal

https://doi.org/10.37697/eskiyeni.1565868

Öz

Bu makalenin amacı, Kripke’nin referans ve zorunluluk teorisinin ilahi mahiyet ve sıfatlar fikrini anlama ve savunmada nasıl kullanılabileceğini göstermektir. Mahiyet (öz) ve zorunluluk mefhumları kelam teolojide merkezi bir konuma sahiptir. Fakat modern felsefede ciddi eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Kripke’nin özellikle Naming and Necessity (Adlandırma ve Zorunluluk) ve Reference and Existence (Gönderim ve Varlık) adlı eserlerinden yola çıkarak, bu fikirlerin teolojik tartışmalarda nasıl etkili bir şekilde kullanılabileceğini göstermeyi amaçlamaktayız. İlk olarak, bu makalede Kripke’nin mümkün dünyalar semantiği incelenmektedir ve bu semantiğin Kripke’den önceki mümkün dünyalar teorileriyle nasıl ilişkili olduğu üzerinde durulmaktadır. Ayrıca, Kripke’nin imkân ve zorunluluk görüşleri, kendisine eleştiriler yönelten çağdaş düşünürlerin fikirleriyle karşılaştırılmakta ve temel eleştiriler ele alınmaktadır. İkinci olarak, Kripke için referans ve anlam açısından merkezi bir kavram olan katı imleyicinin açıklaması verilmektedir. Bundan sonra, mahiyete ait özellikleri savunan üç argümanı açıklanacak ve bunlar teolojiye uyarlanmaya çalışılacaktır. Bunlar, (1) kişisel kimlik için soy bağı zorunluluğu argümanı, (2) kimliğin zorunluluğu argümanı ve (3) doğal türlerin zorunluluğu argümanıdır. Bunlar, teolojik kullanım potansiyelleri sebebiyle incelenmek üzere özellikle seçilmiştir. Bu üç argümandan son ikisinin, zorunlu aposteriori bilginin tutarlı kanıtlarını sunduğu değerlendirilmiştir. Kripke’nin zorunlu aposteriorilik anlayışı, Tanrı’nın mahiyetine dair bazı iddiaları desteklemek için kullanılabilir. Bu kapsamda, Tanrı’nın zorunlu bir mahiyete sahip olduğunu ve bu mahiyetin özsel veya zorunlu aposteriori sıfatlardan oluştuğunu öne sürülmektedir. Böylece çalışmamız ontolojik bir yaklaşım benimsememekte, bunun yerine kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Daha özelde, Kripke’nin savunduğu mahiyet kavramının Tanrı’ya uygulanabilirliğini değerlendirmektedir. Kripke’nin zorunluluğu aposteriorilikle ilişkilendirmesi isabetli ise bu ilişkilendirme mahiyet kavramından yola çıkarak Tanrı’ya zorunlu özelliklere sahip bir varlık olarak atıfta bulunma imkânı vermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Din felsefesi, Teoloji, Kripke, Mahiyet, Öz, Zorunluluk, Katı İmleyici, Gönderme

Defending Divine Essence and Metaphysical Necessity: Theology via Kripke’s Theory of Reference

Öz

The aim of this article is to show how Kripke’s theory of reference and necessity can be used to understand and defend the idea of divine essence and attributes. The notions of essence and necessity are pivotal in theology, yet they have faced significant criticisms in modern philosophy. By engaging with Kripke’s thought—particularly from Naming and Necessity and Reference and Existence—we aim to demonstrate how these ideas can be effectively utilized in theological discourse. First, we shall look at Kripke’s possible world semantics and examine how this relates to previous possible world theories. Also, Kripke’s thought regarding necessity and possibility is compared to that of contemporary thinkers who responded to his ideas and some of the major criticisms of his thought are considered. Secondly, we shall present Kripke’s concept of rigid designation, which is central to his theory of reference and meaning. Finally, we shall explain three of his arguments for essential properties and attempt to apply them in a way that is useful for theology. These are the (1) argument for the necessity of ancestry to personal identity, (2) the argument for the necessity of identity, and (3) the argument for the necessity of natural kinds. These are selected specifically for examination due to their potential theological use. Of these three arguments, the last two are judged to offer coherent proofs of necessary a posteriori knowledge. Kripke’s understanding of necessary a posteriori can be used to support some claims about the essence of God. In this context, we argue that God possesses a necessary essence and that this essence consists of essential or necessary a posteriori attributes. Thus, this study does not adopt an ontological approach but aims to present a conceptual framework. More specifically, it evaluates the applicability of the concept of essence, as advocated by Kripke, to God. It is concluded that if Kripke’s connection of necessity with a posteriority is correct, then the concept of essence allows us to refer to God as a being with necessary properties.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Philosophy of Religion, Theology, Kripke, Essence, Quiddity, Necessity, Rigid Designator, Reference

Kaynakça

• Abrahamov, Binyamin. “The “Bi-lā Kayfa” Doctrine and Its Foundations in Islamic Theology”. Arabica 42/3 (1995), 365-379.
• Ahmed, Arif. Saul Kripke. London: Continuum, 2007.
• Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologiæ: Volume 3 (1a, 12-13) Knowing and Naming God. ed. Thomas Gilby. çev. Herbert McCabe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Bakkal, Erim. “Kripke’nin Kurgu Çözümlemesinde Ad ve Adımsı Arasındaki İlişki”. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 2 (2021), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.5840/kilikya20218211
• Barcan (Marcus), Ruth. C. “A Functional Calculus of First Order Based on Strict Implication”. Journal of Symbolic Logic 11/1 (1946), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/2269159
• Barcan (Marcus), Ruth C. “The Identity of Individuals in a Strict Functional Calculus of Second Order”. Journal of Symbolic Logic 12/1 (1947), 12-15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2267171
• Bizri, Nader. “Avicenna and Essentialism”. The Review of Metaphysics 54/4 (2001), 753-778.
• Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1. ed. John T. McNeill. çev. Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
• Carnap, Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic, genişletilmiş ikinci edisyon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
• Çelebi, Vedat. “Kripke’de Özel Adlar, Fiziksel Durumlar ve Zihinsel Durumlar için İleri Sürülen Özdeşlik Tezi Tartışması”. Beytulhikme 7/2 (2017), 51-74.
• Ceylan, Yasin. “A Critical Approach to The Avicennian Distinction of Essence and Existence”. Islamic Studies 32/3 (1993), 329-337
• Davies, Brian. “Aquinas On What God Is Not”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 52/204 (2), Saint Thomas d'Aquin Aquinas (1998), 207-225.
• Deveaux, Sherry. “The Divine Essence and the Conception of God in Spinoza”. Synthese 135/3 (2003), 329-338. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023594617953
• Derrida, Jacques. “Positions: Interview with Jean-Louis Houdebine and Guy Scarpetta”. Positions. çev. Alan Bass. 37-96. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
• Donnellan, K. “Kripke and Putnam on Natural Kind Terms”. Knowledge and Mind. ed. Carl Ginet – Sydney Shoemaker. 84-104. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
• Farrell, Frank B. How Theology Shaped Twentieth-Century Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108666817
• Gülcan, Nur Yeliz. “Dil Felsefesinde Gönderge Sorunu”. Felsefe Dünyası 44/2 (2006), 168-182.
• Fitch, G. W. Saul Kripke. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773581821
• Hanna, R. “A Kantian Critique of Scientific Essentialism”. Philosophy and Phenomenological
• Research 58/3 (1998), 497-528. https://doi.org/10.2307/2653754
• Helm, Paul. John Calvin’s Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199255695.001.0001
• Helm, Paul. Eternal God: A Study of God without Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590391.002.0002
• İbn Sînâ, Ebû Alî el-Hüseyn b. Abdillâh. Kitabü’ş-Şifa: Metafizik II. çev. Ekrem Demirli – Ömer Türker. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2004.
• Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. çev. Werner S. Pluhar. haz. Patricia W. Kitcher, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987.
• Kerr, Gaven. Aquinas’s Way to God: The Proof in De Ente et Essentia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Kindî, Yaʿkûp b. İshak. Kitâbül-Kindî ilâ l-Muʿtaṣim billah fî l-felsefeti’l-ûlâ’. ed. Fuʿād el-Ahvânî. Kahire: Dâru İhyâi’l-Kütübi’l-ʿArabiyye, 1948.
• Kok, Femke J. “What Can We Know About God? John Burıdan And Marsılıus of Inghen on The Intellect’s Natural Capacıty For Knowıng God’s Essence”. Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 77/1 (2010), 137-171. https://doi.org/10.2143/rtpm.77.1.2050375
• Kripke, Saul. “Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic”. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16 (1963), 83- 94.
• Kripke, Saul. “Naming and Necessity”. Semantics of Natural Language. ed. Donald Davidson – Gilbert Harman. 253-355. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1972.
• Kripke, Saul. “Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2 (1977), 259-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x
• Kripke, Saul. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980. Türkçesi: Adlandırma ve Zorunluluk. çev. Berat Açıl. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2005.
• Kripke, Saul. “A Puzzle about Belief”. Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers, Vol. 1. ed. Saul Kripke. 125-161. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730155.003.0006
• Kripke, Saul. Reference and Existence: The John Locke Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199928385.001.0001
• Leftow, Brian. God and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• Lowe, E. J. A Survey of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
• Mann, William E. “Divine Simplicity”. Religious Studies 18/4 (1982), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500014360
• Marcus, Ruth Barcan. Modalities: Philosophical Essays. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
• Mâturîdî, Ebû Mansûr. Kitâbül-Tevhîd. thk. Bekir Topaloğlu – Muhammed Aruçi. İstanbul: Mektebetü’l-İrşad, 2010.
• Mâturîdî, Ebû Mansûr. Te’v’îlâtü’l-Kur’ân. 8. Cilt. ed. Halil İbrahim Kaçar – Bekir Topaloğlu. İstanbul: Mizan Yayınevi, 2006.
• Miller, Richard W. “The Heart of Light: God as Mystery”. New Blackfriars 92/1039 (2011), 358-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2010.01356.x
• Morewedge, Parviz. “Philosophical Analysis and Ibn Sīnā’s ‘Essence-Existence’ Distinction”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 92/3 (1972), 425-435. https://doi.org/10.2307/600568
• Moravec, Matyáš. “Aquinas and Kripke on the Genealogy of Essential Properties”. Heythrop Journal 59 (2021), 1025-1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/heyj.13045
• Murphy, Nancy. Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1990.
• O’Grady, Jane. “Saul Kripke Obituary”. The Guardian (2022), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/21/saul-kripke-obituary
• Özaykal, Kayhan. “Deconstruction of Ibn Sīnā’s Essence-Existence Distinction and the Essence of the Necessary Existent”. darulfunun ilahiyat 29/1 (2018), 25-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.26650/di.2018.29.1.0104
• Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.
• Plantinga, Alvin. Does God Have a Nature? Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980.
• Plotinus. The Enneads. ed. John Dillon, çev. Stephen MacKenna. London: Penguin Books, 1991.
• Prior, Arthur N. Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957. https://doi.org/10.2307/2216989
• Quine, W. V. “Notes on Existence and Necessity”. Journal of Philosophy 40/5 (1943), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/2017458
• Quine, W. V. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. The Philosophical Review 60/1 (1951), 20-43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906
• Quine, W. V. Word and Object Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9636.001.0001
• Rahner, Karl. “Thomas Aquinas on the Incomprehensibility of God”. The Journal of Religion 58, Supplement. Celebrating the Medieval Heritage: A Colloquy on the Thought of Aquinas and Bonaventure (1978), 107-125.
• Râzî, Fahreddin. el-Metâlibü’l-ʿâliyye mine’l-ʿilmi’l-ilâhiyye, 3. Cilt. thk. Ahmed Hicâzî es-Sekkâ, Beyrut: Dârü’l-Kitâbi’l-Arabî, 1987.
• Reiss, Julian – Jan Sprenger. “Scientific Objectivity”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2020), ed. Edward Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/scientific-objectivity.
• Roberts, Sam. “Saul Kripke, Philosopher Who Found Truths in Semantics, Dies at 81.” The New York Times (2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/education/learning/saul-kripke-dead.html.
• Rogers, Katherin. “The Traditional Doctrine of Divine Simplicity”. Religious Studies 32/2 (1996), 165-186. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412500024215
• Russell, Bertrand. “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description”. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 11/1 (1910), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/11.1.108
• Russell, Bertrand. “On Denoting”. Mind 14/56 (1905), 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479
• Saygılı, Serdar – Urtekin, Gülsima. “Saul Aaron Kripke Semantiğinde Özel Adlar ve Gönderim Problemi”. Temaşa Felsefe Dergisi 19 (2023), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1190999
• Searle, J. R. “Proper Names”. Mind 67/266 (1958), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LXVII.266.166
• Teftâzânî, Saʿduddin. Şerhu’l-ʿAkâidi’n-Nesefiyye. Dimeşk: Dârü’d-Dekkâk, 2022.
• Wolfson, Harry A. “Philosophical Implications of the Problem of Divine Attributes in the Kalam”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 79/2 (1959), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.2307/595847
• Wolterstorff, Nicholas. “Divine Simplicity”. Philosophical Perspectives 5, Philosophy of Religion (1991), 531-552. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214108
• Wright, Crispin. “The Conceivability of Naturalism”. Conceivability and Possibility. ed. Tamar Szabo Gendler – John Hawthorne. 401-439. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.