Abstract
One of the questions with which Analytic Philosophers •are concerned today is the relation between a priori and a posteriori statements on the one hand, necessary and contingent statements on the other. Not very long ago the relatively common answer to this question was simply that all necessary statements were a priori (and vice versa), while all contingent statements a posteriori (and vice versa). However, some contemporary philosophers such as Saul Kripke are opposed to this view. The present article deals with Kripke’s ideas regarding this matter as well as the objections raised by his critics. The final evaluation is taken up by the author
)