抄録
Michael Della Rocca, in his "Essentialism versus Essentialism", pointed out that Kripke's defense of his essentialism is made unstable by his limited use of the method of counterparts. But the defense, if trying to get out of this unstable position, would be circular, and therefore turns out to be unable to be justified. Kripke's version of essentialism, by introducing the method of counterparts into it, has a self-under-mining character, so argues Della Rocca. In this paper, I shall argue that these objections of Della Rocca to Kripke are wrong. After reviewing the objections, I shall argue that Della Rocca, when arguing for the circularity of Kripke's defense of his essentialism, is relying on a false premise and shall object to his objections. Then, I shall outline what more appropriate objections to Kripke's version of essentialism would be like.
