1. Saul Kripke 在他的名著 Naming and Necessity 攻擊 cluster concept theory of names, 不過在開火之前, 他這樣點評 cluster theory:
[Cluster concept theory of names] really is a nice theory. The only defect I think it has is probably common to all philosophical theories. It's wrong.「這個理論挺 nice, (抽一口煙) 它唯一的缺點就是錯」, 還連其他哲學理論也順便婊一下, 不愧是 Kripke!
--Kripke, Naming and Necessity, 1980, p. 64
2. Michael Devitt 反對直接指涉理論 (Direct Reference theory), 他認為 DR 得面對幾個難題, 一般來說, DR 的支持者有三種回應策略, 第一種策略是…
Direct reference philosophers have three strategies for avoiding the traditional problems for the ‘Fido’-Fido theory. The first is the easiest but has the least to recommend it: ignore the problems. I shall call this “the Ostrich Strategy.”人家都已經裝看不到了, 你還提...
--Devitt, “Against Direct Reference,” p. 219
3. Devitt 的 “Against Direct Reference” (1989) 發表二十幾年後, 他在 2012 年的新文章 “Still Against Direct Reference” 這樣介紹當年的文章:
I have criticized this doctrine many times, including in a paper called “Against Direct Reference” (1989). In brief, I have argued that the doctrine is theoretically unmotivated and faces an insurmountable difficulty, the well-known problem of identity statements. My criticisms have had sadly little effect. But I am still against direct reference and so I shall try again.“My criticisms have had sadly little effect. But I am still against direct reference” 聽起來已經相當可憐, 在 google scholar 搜尋到引用次數, 跟其他文章比起來，果然 “had sadly little effect”, 更可憐了！
--Devitt, “Still Against Direct Reference,” p. 68
4. David Kaplan 有本非常著名的書 -- Theme from Kaplan, 裡面有一篇關於他的 indexical (e.g. “this”, “that”) 的理論, 有一個例子是這樣的: 我指著早上出現的金星, 又指著晚上出現的金星, 說「這顆星是這顆星」
That [pointing to Venus in the morning sky] is identical with that [pointing to Venus in the evening sky].不加括號說明，我還真想不到要 “speak very slowly,” 這種例子真虧你想得出來.
(I would, of course, have to speak very slowly.)
--Kaplan, “Demonstrative,” p. 514
5. Kaplan 的 Theme from Kaplan 有600多頁, 但基本上都不是他寫的, 而是由三位大咖幫他編的, 此書約450頁是其他作者特別抽空, 專門寫來點評 Kaplan 的哲學理論. 這群作者包括 Ruth Barcan Marcus (模態邏輯的 Barcan formula 便是以她命名), Robert Adams, Alonzo Church, Roderick Chisholm, Kit Fine, Nathan Salmon, Scott Soames 等等等等, 可謂粒粒皆星。好吧, 群星拱照的 Kaplan, 究竟寫了甚麼呢？
XX. Adding ‘Says’“This section is not yet written”, 有爆點！而且接下來明明就有內文, 爆點 +1!
[This section is not yet written. What follows is a rough outline of what is to come.]
--Kaplan, “Demonstrative,” p. 553
XXII. On Proper Names一句 “What follows is the most hastily written section of this draft” 還不夠, 加上 “My current inclination is to drop this whole section from the final draft”, 實在威力無窮. 很難想像那群幫 Kaplan 寫了450頁的作者看到這段會有怎樣的表情, 可是我就笑到停不下來.
[Some thoughts on proper names from the perspective of the formal system are contained in Remark 11 , page 551. What follows is the most hastily written section of this draft. I sketch a view that is mainly negative, without including much supporting argumentation (several of the omitted arguments seem both tedious and tendentious). My current inclination is to drop this whole section from the final draft.]
--Kaplan, “Demonstrative,” p. 558-559