Graduate studies at Western
Theoria 18 (2):145-158 (2003)
|Abstract||Recently it has become almost the received wisdom in certain quarters that Kripke models are appropriate only for something like metaphysical modalities, and not for logical modalities. Here the line of thought leading to Kripke models, and reasons why they are no less appropriate for logical than for other modalities, are explained. It is also indicated where the fallacy in the argument leading to the contrary conclusion lies. The lessons learned are then applied to the question of the status of the formula|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sergei N. Artemov (2012). The Ontology of Justifications in the Logical Setting. Studia Logica 100 (1-2):17-30.
John P. Burgess (2011). Kripke Models. In Alan Berger (ed.), Saul Kripke. Cambridge University Press.
Joseph Diekemper (2004). Temporal Necessity and Logical Fatalism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (3):287–294.
Sjoerd D. Zwart (2005). Updating Theories. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):375-395.
Kosta Došen (1985). Models for Stronger Normal Intuitionistic Modal Logics. Studia Logica 44 (1):39 - 70.
Brian MacPherson (1997). A Challenge to the Kripke/Putnam Distinction Between Epistemic and Metaphysical Necessity. Southwest Philosophy Review 13 (2):113--128.
Richard Montague (1960). Logical Necessity, Physical Necessity, Ethics, and Quantifiers. Inquiry 3 (1-4):259 – 269.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #101,269 of 739,360 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,616 of 739,360 )
How can I increase my downloads?