DOCSLIB.ORG

Bibliography on Modality and Possible Worlds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bibliography on Modality and Possible Worlds Bibliography on Modality and Possible Worlds Karen Bennett and Ted Sider (Most abstracts taken from the Philosophers Index and PhilPapers) Spring, 2014 Adams, Robert Merrihew (1974). “Theories of Actuality.” Noûs 8: 211–31. Reprinted in Loux 1979: 190–209. — (1981). “Actualism and Thisness.” Synthese 49: 3–41. The thesis of this essay is that all possibilities are purely qualitative ex- cept insofar as they involve individuals that actually exist. This thesis is expounded and defended, and some of its implications for modality are developed; the chief implication is that what modal facts “de re” there are depends on what individuals actually exist. Armstrong, David M. (1989). A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ayer, Alfred Jules (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1946. 2nd edition. Bacon, Andrew (2013). “Quanti cational Logic and Empty Names.” Philoso- phers’ Imprint 13(24). The result of combining classical quanti cational logic with modal logic proves necessitism – the claim that necessarily everything is necessarily identical to something. This problem is reected in the purely quanti - cational theory by theorems such as $ exists xt = x$; it is a theorem, for example, that something is identical 1 to Timothy Williamson. The standard way to avoid these consequences is to weaken the theory of quanti cation to a certain kind of free logic. However, it has often been noted that in order to specify the truth con- ditions of certain sentences involving constants or variables that don’t denote, one has to apparently quantify over things that are not identi- cal to anything. In this paper I defend a contingentist, non-Meinongian metaphysics within a positive free logic. I argue that although certain names and free variables do not actually refer to anything, in each case there might have been something they actually refer to, allowing one to interpret the contingentist claims without quantifying over mere possi- bilia Bealer, George (1987). “The Philosophical Limits of Scienti c Essentialism.” Philosophical Perspectives 1: 289–365. Scienti c essentialism is the view that some necessities (e.g., water = H2O) can be known only with the aid of empirical science. The thesis of the paper is that scienti c essentialism does not extend to the cen- tral questions of philosophy and that these questions can be answered a priori. The argument is that the evidence required for the defense of scienti c essentialism (e.g., twin earth intuitions) is reliable only if the intuitions required by philosophy to answer its central questions is also reliable. Included is an outline of a modal reliabilist theory of basic evi- dence and a concept-possession account of the reliability of a priori in- tuition. — (2006). “A De nition of Necessity.” Philosophical Perspectives 20(1): 17–39. In the history of philosophy, especially its recent history, a number of de nitions of necessity have been ventured. Most people, however, nd these de nitions either circular or subject to counterexamples. I will show that, given a broadly Fregean conception of properties, necessity does indeed have a noncircular counterexample-free de nition. Bennett, Karen (2005). “Two Axes of Actualism.” Philosophical Review 114: 297–326. — (2006). “Proxy ‘Actualism’.” Philosophical Studies 129. Bigelow, John (1988). “Real Possibilites.” Philosophical Studies 53: 37–64. 2 Blackburn, Simon (1987). “Morals and Modals.” In Fact, Science and Value, Essays in Honour of A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic. Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in Blackburn 1993. This paper displays a “quasi-realist” theory of necessary truths, in which our propensity to attach modal values to propositions is compared with our propensity to moral attitudes. The theory offers an alternative to Quinean scepticism to “as if” theories, and to modal realism. — (1993). Essays in Quasi-Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bricker, Phillip (1987). “Reducing Possible Worlds to Language.” Philosophical Studies 52: 331–55. — (1991). “Plenitude of Possible Structures.” Journal of Philosophy 88: 607–19. Which mathematical structures are possible, that is, instantiated by the concrete inhabitants of some possible world? Are there worlds with four- dimensional space? With in nite-dimensional space? Whence comes our knowledge of the possibility of structures? In this paper, I develop and defend a principle of plenitude according to which any mathemati- cally natural generalization of possible structure is itself possible. I moti- vate the principle pragmatically by way of the role that logical possibility plays in our inquiry into the world. — (1996). “Isolation and Uni cation: The Realist Analysis of Possible Worlds.” Philosophical Studies 84: 225–38. If realism about possible worlds is to succeed in eliminating primitive modality, it must provide an “analysis” of possible world: nonmodal cri- teria for demarcating one world from another. This David Lewis has done. Lewis holds, roughly, that worlds are maximal uni ed regions of logical space. So far, so good. But what Lewis means by uni cation’ is too narrow, I think, in two different ways. First, for Lewis, all worlds are (almost) “globally” uni ed: at any world, (almost) every part is directly linked to (almost) every other part. I hold instead that some worlds are “locally” uni ed: at some worlds, parts are directly linked only to “neigh- boring” parts. Second, for Lewis, each world is (analogically) “spatiotem- porally” uni ed; every world is “spatiotemporally” isolated from every other. I hold instead: a world may be uni ed by nonspatiotemporal rela- tions; every world is “absolutely” isolated from every other. If I am right, Lewis’s conception of logical space is impoverished: perfectly respectable worlds are missing. 3 — (2001). “Island Universes and the Analysis of Modality.” In Gerhard Preyer and Frank Siebelt (eds.), Reality and Humean Supervenience: Essays on the Phi- losophy of David Lewis, 27–55. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Little eld. — (2006). “Absolute Actuality and the Plurality of Worlds.” Philosophical Per- spectives 20: 41–76. Brock, Stuart (1993). “Modal Fictionalism: A Response to Rosen.” Mind 102: 147–50. Gideon Rosen, in his paper Modal Fictionalism (Mind, 1990) puts for- ward and defends what is intended to be an ontologically neutral alter- native to modal realism. I argue that Rosen does not achieve this goal. His ctionalism entails realism about possible worlds. Moreover, any at- tempts to modify the analysis results in an undesirable multiplication of the modal primitives, a problem faced by those who take the standard modal operators as primitive. Burgess, John P. (1997). “Quinus ab Omni Naevo Vindicatus.” Canadian Jour- nal of Philosophy Supplementary volume 23: 25–65. Useful paper clarifying Quine’s attack on quanti ed modal logic. Carnap, Rudolf (1947). Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chalmers, David J. (2002). “Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?” In Gendler and Hawthorne (2002), 145–200. Coffa, Alberto J. (1991). The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap: To the Vienna Station. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Landmark book describing the history of thought about a prioricity and necessity and analyticity, from Kant to the twentieth-century linguistic philosophers (like logical positivists and the ordinary language philoso- phers). Correia, Fabrice (2007). “(Finean) Essence and (Priorean) Modality.” Dialec- tica 61(1): 63–84. — (2012). “On the Reduction of Necessity to Essence.” Philosophy and Phe- nomenological Research 84(3): 639–653. 4 In his inuential paper “Essence and Modality”, Kit Fine argues that no account of essence framed in terms of metaphysical necessity is possible, and that it is rather metaphysical necessity which is to be understood in terms of essence. On his account, the concept of essence is primitive, and for a proposition to be metaphysically necessary is for it to be true in virtue of the nature of all things. Fine also proposes a reduction of conceptual and logical necessity in the same vein: a conceptual necessity is a proposition true in virtue of the nature of all concepts, and a logical necessity a proposition true in virtue of the nature of all logical concepts. I argue that the plausibility of Fine’s view crucially requires that certain apparent explanatory links between essentialist facts be admitted and ac- counted for, and I make a suggestion about how this can be done. I then argue against the reductions of conceptual and logical necessity proposed by Fine and suggest alternative reductions, which remain nevertheless Finean in spirit Craig, E. J. (1975). “The Problem of Necessary Truth.” In Simon Blackburn (ed.), Meaning, Reference and Necessity: New Studies in Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cresswell, M.J. (1972). “The World Is Everything That Is The Case.” Aus- tralasian Journal of Philosophy 50: 1–13. Reprinted in Loux 1979: 129–45. Davies, Martin and Lloyd Humberstone (1980). “TwoNotions of Necessity.” Philosophical Studies 38: 1–30. deRosset, Louis (2009a). “Possible Worlds I: Modal Realism.” Philosophy Com- pass 4(6): 998–1008. It is dif cult to wander far in contemporary metaphysics without bump- ing into talk of possible worlds. And reference to possible worlds is not con ned to metaphysics. It can be found in contemporary epistemology and ethics, and has even made its way into linguistics and decision the- ory. What are those possible worlds, the entities to which theorists in these disciplines all appeal? This paper sets out and evaluates a leading contemporary theory of possible worlds, David Lewis’s Modal Realism. I note two competing ambitions for a theory of possible worlds: that it be reductive and user-friendly. I then outline Modal Realism and consider objections to the effect that it cannot satisfy these ambitions. I conclude that there is some reason to believe that Modal Realism is not reductive and overwhelming reason to believe that it is not user-friendly. 5 — (2009b). “Possible Worlds II: Non-Reductive Theories of Possible Worlds.” Philosophy Compass 4(6): 1009–1021.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Haecceitism, Chance
    HAECCEITISM, CHANCE, AND COUNTERFACTUALS Boris Kment Abstract. Anti-haecceitists believe that all facts about specific individuals—such as the fact that Fred exists, or that Katie is tall—globally supervene on purely qualitative facts. Haecceitists deny that. The issue is not only of interest in itself, but receives additional importance from its intimate connection to the question of whether all fundamental facts are qualitative or whether they include facts about which specific individuals there are and how qualitative properties and relations are distributed over them. Those who think that all fundamental facts are qualitative are arguably committed to anti-haecceitism. The goal of this paper is to point out some problems for anti-haecceitism (and therefore for the thesis that all fundamental facts are qualitative). The article focuses on two common assumptions about possible worlds: (i) Sets of possible worlds are the bearers of objective physical chance. (ii) Counterfactual conditionals can be defined by appeal to a relation of closeness between possible worlds. The essay tries to show that absurd consequences ensue if either of these assumptions is combined with anti-haecceitism. Then it considers a natural response by the anti-haecceitist, which is to deny that worlds play the role described in (i) and (ii). Instead, the reply continues, we can introduce a new set of entities that are defined in terms of worlds and that behave the way worlds do on the haecceitist position. That allows the anti-haecceitist to formulate anti-haecceitist friendly versions of (i) and (ii) by replacing the appeal to possible worlds with reference to the newly introduced entities.
    [Show full text]
  • (Penultimate Version; Final Version to Appear in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 2019) the 2
    1 (penultimate version; final version to appear in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 2019) The 2019 Sanders Lecture Morally Loaded Cases in Philosophy1 Timothy Williamson 1. The question Dialectical effectiveness in philosophy can pattern in surprising ways. For instance, when apparently morally neutral issues are debated in epistemology and metaphysics, philosophical logic and philosophy of language, morally loaded examples sometimes have greater dialectical power than morally neutral examples based on knowledge from ordinary life or natural science. One might have expected it to be the other way round, given the contested status of moral knowledge. By ‘morally loaded’ I mean cases explicitly described in moral terms, or at least in ways which make moral matters very salient, as with Holocaust denial. Such cases seem to be so dialectically powerful because they are so highly emotive. That raises an obvious question: is this dialectical power legitimate, or does it involve a kind of cheating, getting readers or hearers worked up to a point where they are in no mood to apply subtle but necessary distinctions? We are usually supposed to be best at assessing philosophical claims in a cool hour. 2. Three classes of example Before addressing the main question, we should look more closely at the phenomenon to be understood. I will sketch three classes of philosophical view which seem vulnerable to such moralizing critiques. The list is far from exhaustive. Relativism 2 I have in mind full-blown relativism about truth, the idea that when you and I seem deadlocked in disagreement, the bottom line is that some things are true for me but not for you, while other things are true for you but not for me; there is no question of one of us being really or absolutely right and the other really or absolutely wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Reply to Stone on Counterpart Theory and Four-Dimensionalism Antony Eagle
    reply to stone on counterpart theory 159 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USAANALAnalysis0003-26382007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.April 200767215962Original ArticlesAntony Eagle REPLY TO STONE ON COUNTERPART THEORY Reply to Stone on counterpart theory and four-dimensionalism Antony Eagle In a recent article, Jim Stone argues that counterpart theory and four- dimensionalism are incompatible (Stone 2005). His arguments carry no obvious weight against the stage view defended by Sider (2001). Nor do they undermine the more vulnerable combination of the worm view and counterpart theory – or so I shall argue. Stone considers a space-time worm A which is a bronze statue of a unicorn throughout its entire existence, from t1 to t10 (scenario I). Since the bronze could survive being melted down while the statue could not, there is a (distinct) situation (scenario II), where A is melted down, and recast at t11. Stone claims that in II A both does and does not have more temporal parts than it has in scenario I, in virtue of the bronze counterparts of A surviving but the statue-shaped counterparts of A failing to survive. As it stands, this argument is invalid: if eternalism is true, the bronze in scenario II is not identical to A, since it is true throughout II that the Analysis 67.2, April 2007, pp. 159–62. © Antony Eagle 160 antony eagle bronze B outlives the worm A. Dialectically, since eternalism is likely to be held for independent reasons by the four-dimensionalist, Stone’s argu- ment has no force. Moreover, according to the counterpart theorist, A does not exist in II; at best, some counterpart of A exists in that scenario.
    [Show full text]
  • "Fictionalism: Morality and Metaphor"
    - 1 - Fictionalism: Morality and metaphor Richard Joyce Penultimate draft of paper appearing in F. Kroon & B. Armour-Garb (eds.), Philosophical Fictionalism (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 1. Introduction Language and reflection often pull against each other. Ordinary ways of talking appear to commit speakers to ontologies that may, upon reflection, be deemed problematic for a variety of empirical, metaphysical, and/or epistemological reasons. The use of moral discourse, for example, appears to commit speakers to the existence of obligation, evil, desert, praiseworthiness (and so on), while metaethical reflection raises a host of doubts about how such properties could exist in the world and how we could have access to them if they did. One extreme solution to the tension is to give up reflection—to become like those “honest gentlemen” of England, as Hume described them, who “being always employ’d in domestic affairs, or amusing themselves in common recreations, have carried their thoughts very little beyond those objects” (Treatise 1.4.7.14). Hume sounds a touch envious of the unreflective idyll, but the very fact that he is penning a treatise on human nature shows that this is not a solution available to him; and, likewise, the very fact that you are reading this chapter shows that it’s unlikely to be a solution for you. Another extreme solution to the tension is to give up language—not in toto, of course, but selectively: to stop using those elements of discourse that are deemed to have unacceptable commitments. How radical this eliminativism is will depend on the nature of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anti-Essentialism Paper
    The New Pragmatism, Anti-essentialism, and What is Universal: It’s The Situation All The Way Down C. F. Abel Stephen F. Austin State University [email protected] The New Pragmatism, Anti-essentialism, and What is Universal: It’s The Situation All The Way Down C. F. Abel Stephen F. Austin State University [email protected] A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" Introduction “New Pragmatism” attacks the very foundation of pragmatic thought by denying that we may ever have any definitive experience. As what we are experiencing is up for grabs, we can never know any situation that we may encounter, and we are left to ground both our knowledge and our values in our language games alone. This paper argues that this set of claims is founded on two errors, one regarding the nature of language games and the other regarding the nature of deconstruction. The “Old Pragmatism,” by way of contrast, is non-essentialist but not anti- essentialist, and it resolves the problem of how we might know “the situation,” given the subjectivity of our observations and the contingencies of our language games, by suggesting that our experiences can be understood as existing in, and constituted by, the totality of their particular instances or modes at the time of inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on Sider's Four Dimensionalism
    Sally Haslanger MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy [email protected] 12/30/03 Comments on Sider I. Introduction Congratulations to Ted on the APA Prize. Ted’s book Four Dimensionalism is an impressive piece of work, and it is an honor to be included in this session. The book is a paradigm of systematic work in analytic metaphysics. It demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of a variety of debates over time, persistence, material constitution, as well as a sensitivity to background issues concerning methodology in metaphysics. It is a significant accomplishment. I’ll start by giving a very brief summary of Sider’s position and will identify some points on which my own position differs from his. I’ll then raise four issues, viz., how to articulate the 3-dimensionalist view, the trade-offs between Ted’s stage view of persistence and endurance with respect to intrinsic properties, the endurantist’s response to the argument from vagueness, and finally more general questions about what’s at stake in the debate. I don’t believe that anything I say raises insurmountable problems for Sider’s view; and in fact, I’m sure he’s in a better position to defend his view more convincingly than I’m able to defend mine. However, there is plenty worth discussing further. Sider defends what he calls “four dimensionalism,” but we should start by being clear how he understands this position.1 He defines “four dimensionalism” as “an ontology of the material world according to which objects have temporal as well as spatial parts.” (xiii) So the thesis of four-dimensionalism Sider is interested in is a thesis about objects and their parts.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelian Finitism
    Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-015-0827-9 S.I. : INFINITY Aristotelian finitism Tamer Nawar1 Received: 12 January 2014 / Accepted: 25 June 2015 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract It is widely known that Aristotle rules out the existence of actual infinities but allows for potential infinities. However, precisely why Aristotle should deny the existence of actual infinities remains somewhat obscure and has received relatively little attention in the secondary literature. In this paper I investigate the motivations of Aristotle’s finitism and offer a careful examination of some of the arguments con- sidered by Aristotle both in favour of and against the existence of actual infinities. I argue that Aristotle has good reason to resist the traditional arguments offered in favour of the existence of the infinite and that, while there is a lacuna in his own ‘logi- cal’ arguments against actual infinities, his arguments against the existence of infinite magnitude and number are valid and more well grounded than commonly supposed. Keywords Aristotle · Aristotelian commentators · Infinity · Mathematics · Metaphysics 1 Introduction It is widely known that Aristotle embraced some sort of finitism and denied the exis- tence of so-called ‘actual infinities’ while allowing for the existence of ‘potential infinities’. It is difficult to overestimate the influence of Aristotle’s views on this score and the denial of the (actual) existence of infinities became a commonplace among philosophers for over two thousand years. However, the precise grounds for Aristo- tle’s finitism have not been discussed in much detail and, insofar as they have received attention, his reasons for ruling out the existence of (actual) infinities have often been B Tamer Nawar [email protected] 1 University of Oxford, 21 Millway Close, Oxford OX2 8BJ, UK 123 Synthese deemed obscure or ad hoc (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Knowledge and Knowledge of Counterfactuals
    Grazer Philosophische Studien 74 (2007), 89–123. PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE OF COUNTERFACTUALS Timothy WILLIAMSON University of Oxford Summary Metaphysical modalities are defi nable from counterfactual conditionals, and the epistemology of the former is a special case of the epistemology of the latter. In particular, the role of conceivability and inconceivability in assessing claims of possibility and impossibility can be explained as a special case of the pervasive role of the imagination in assessing counterfactual conditionals, an account of which is sketched. Th us scepticism about metaphysical modality entails a more far-reaching scepticism about counterfactuals. Th e account is used to question the signifi cance of the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. § 0. Philosophers characteristically ask not just whether things are some way but whether they could have been otherwise. What could have been otherwise is metaphysically contingent; what could not is metaphysically necessary. We have some knowledge of such matters. We know that Henry VIII could have had more than six wives, but that three plus three could not have been more than six. So there should be an epistemology of metaphysical modality. Th e diff erences between metaphysical necessity, contingency and impos- sibility are not mind-dependent, in any useful sense of that tantalizing phrase. Th us they are not diff erences in actual or potential psychological, social, linguistic or even epistemic status (Kripke 1980 makes the crucial distinctions). One shortcut to this conclusion uses the plausible idea that mathematical truth is mind-independent. Since mathematics is not con- tingent, the diff erence between truth and falsity in mathematics is also the diff erence between necessity and impossibility; consequently, the diff erence between necessity and impossibility is mind-independent.
    [Show full text]
  • 97 Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabo Gendler, and John Hawthorne, Eds
    Philosophy in Review XXXVII (June 2017), no. 3 Herman Cappelen, Tamar Szabo Gendler, and John Hawthorne, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford University Press 2016. 688 pp. $150.00 USD (Hardcover ISBN 9780199668779). A working assumption within philosophy is that from the point of view of research, philosophers make use of a diverse set of methods. This includes, though is not limited to, argumentation, explanation, analysis, description, interpretation and so on. A further point to note is that the use of such methods may be found among practicing philosophers both today as well as within the history of philosophy, and likewise across diverse disciplines and philosophical movements from pragmatism to logical positivism, phenomenology to deconstructionism. What we find is that although philosophers may disagree on most philosophical issues, the question of whether or not philosophy simply makes use of method is hardly controversial. A further assumption that might be made is that one or another method serves best to characterize the philosophical endeavor. Here we might point to reason and argument as a primary instance of this. Since ancient times, philosophers have clearly set themselves apart from the other domains of inquiry in the use of argument, reasoned discourse and debate. The problem with such an assumption, however, is that it is far from self-evident. Although philosophy certainly makes use of argumentation, since at least the 20th century, the use of rational speculation and demonstration has tended to diminish in favor of other approaches far more critical in nature, e.g., analysis and description. A further objection may be found today in the increasing use of empirical evidence as a foundation for philosophical inquiry, so-called ‘experimental’ philosophy, which in many ways opposes traditional ‘armchair’ methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Putnam's Theory of Natural Kinds and Their Names Is Not The
    PUTNAM’S THEORY OF NATURAL KINDS AND THEIR NAMES IS NOT THE SAME AS KRIPKE’S IAN HACKING Collège de France Abstract Philosophers have been referring to the “Kripke–Putnam” theory of natural- kind terms for over 30 years. Although there is one common starting point, the two philosophers began with different motivations and presuppositions, and developed in different ways. Putnam’s publications on the topic evolved over the decades, certainly clarifying and probably modifying his analysis, while Kripke published nothing after 1980. The result is two very different theories about natural kinds and their names. Both accept that the meaning of a natural- kind term is not given by a description or defining properties, but is specified by its referents. From then on, Putnam rejected even the label, causal theory of reference, preferring to say historical, or collective. He called his own approach indexical. His account of substance identity stops short a number of objections that were later raised, such as what is called the qua problem. He came to reject the thought that water is necessarily H2O, and to denounce the idea of metaphysical necessity that goes beyond physical necessity. Essences never had a role in his analysis; there is no sense in which he was an essentialist. He thought of hidden structures as the usual determinant of natural kinds, but always insisted that what counts as a natural kind is relative to interests. “Natural kind” itself is itself an importantly theoretical concept, he argued. The paper also notes that Putnam says a great deal about what natural kinds are, while Kripke did not.
    [Show full text]
  • Lewis on Conventions and Meaning
    Lewis on conventions and meaning phil 93914 Jeff Speaks April 3, 2008 Lewis (1975) takes the conventions in terms of which meaning can be analyzed to be conventions of truthfulness and trust in a language. His account may be adapted to state an analysis of a sentence having a given meaning in a population as follows: x means p in a population G≡df (1a) ordinarily, if a member of G utters x, the speaker believes p, (1b) ordinarily, if a member of G hears an utterance of x, he comes to believe p, unless he already believed this, (2) members of G believe that (1a) and (1b) are true, (3) the expectation that (1a) and (1b) will continue to be true gives members of G a good reason to continue to utter x only if they believe p, and to expect the same of other members of G, (4) there is among the members of G a general preference for people to continue to conform to regularities (1a) and (1b) (5) there is an alternative regularity to (1a) and (1b) which is such that its being generally conformed to by some members of G would give other speakers reason to conform to it (6) all of these facts are mutually known by members of G Some objections: • Clause (5) should be dropped, because, as Burge (1975) argued, this clause makes Lewis's conditions on linguistic meaning too strong. Burge pointed out that (5) need not be mutually known by speakers for them to speak a meaningful language. Consider, for example, the case in which speakers believe that there is no possible language other than their own, and hence that there is no alternative regularity to (1a) and (1b).
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Argument Where It Leads
    Following The Argument Where It Leads Thomas Kelly Princeton University [email protected] Abstract: Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common sense or 'Moorean' responses to revisionary philosophical theorizing. 1. Introduction Bertrand Russell devoted the thirteenth chapter of his History of Western Philosophy to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He concluded his discussion with a rather unflattering assessment: There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times (1945: 463). The extent to which this is a fair assessment of Aquinas is controversial.1 My purpose in what follows, however, is not to defend Aquinas; nor is it to substantiate the charges that Russell brings against him.
    [Show full text]