This outline was prepared hastily—at the editor’s insistence—from a taped manuscript of a lecture. Since I was not even given the opportunity to revise the first draft before publication, I cannot be held responsible for any lacunae in the (published version of the) argument, or for any fallacious or garbled inferences resulting from faulty preparation of the typescript. Also, the argument now seems to me to have problems which I did not know when I wrote it, but which I can’t discuss here, and which are completely unrelated to any criticisms that have appeared in the literature (or that I have seen in manuscript); all such criticisms misconstrue my argument. It will be noted that the present version of the argument seems to presuppose the (intuitionistically unacceptable) law of double negation. But the argument can easily be reformulated in a way that avoids employing such an inference rule. I hope to expand on these matters further in a separate monograph.

“Content?”

Whoops, fixed.

And Kripke’s still up to it – he published a paper recently, whose first footnote says:

Those familiar with some of my previous writings, especially my first book, will recognize that this paper is based on a transcription from tape. … The abstract following is due to David Harris, editorial assistant on this volume, with slight corrections by the author and S. Neale.

He also says

The truth is I don’t know (though maybe someone can tell me) whether famous papers—this shows my ignorance—as opposed to books, are in fact ever written in contemporary continental philosophy. I’ve heard of this or that famous book, but of no famous papers.

With a footnote that said “In the discussion, I believe someone said that there were some.”