Understanding Kripke’s a Posteriori Necessary Propositions—Examining the Challenges of Proper Name Reference through the Mount Tai “Wudafu” Case

本文以泰山“五大夫”指称演变为切入点，检验克里普克后验必然性理论。该理论主张专名通过历史因果链固定指称，但其在历史偶然性与社会实践中的解释边界亟待探讨。研究发现：(1) 命名行为的极端偶然性——秦始皇避雨封树直接瓦解严格指示词的跨世界指称根基；(2) 历史因果链被双重解构——陆贽误读与树木补植后的社会性指称再生，表明语言实践依赖规范重构；(3) 当代指称关系依托制度命名与公共共识，揭示“必然性”实为社会建构产物，其认识论基础弱于科学命题。上述分析表明，克里普克理论在人文专名领域存在结构性局限：严格指示词的模态刚性无法兼容社会语义弹性，因果链模型难以解释动态重构逻辑。未来需整合历史语用学拓展理论框架。This paper takes the evolution of the appellation “Wudafu” (Five Officials) of Mount Tai as a starting point to test Kripke’s theory of a posteriori necessity. The theory claims that proper names fix their reference through historical-causal chain, but its interpretative boundaries in the context of historical contingency and social practice urgently need to be explored. Findings show: (1) The highly contingent initial naming act (Qin Shi Huang sheltering under trees) directly undermines the cross-world reference basis of rigid designators. (2) The historical-causal chain is broken by misinterpretation and referential regeneration after replanting, indicating that linguistic practice relies on normative reconstruction. (3) Contemporary reference relies on institutional naming and consensus, revealing the “necessity” as socially constructed. Its epistemological foundation is weaker than that of scientific propositions. The above analysis shows that Kripke’s theory has structural limitations in the field of humanistic proper names: the modal rigidity of rigid designators cannot be compatible with social semantic elasticity, and the causal chain model fails to explain the logic of dynamic reconstruction. Future research needs to integrate historical pragmatics to expand the theoretical framework.