Philosophical Studies 140 (2):149 - 159 (2008)
|Abstract||Nathan Salmon, in his paper Trans-World Identification and Stipulation (1996) purports to give a proof for the claim that facts concerning trans-world identity cannot be conceptually reduced to general facts. He calls this claim ‘Extreme Haecceitism.’ I argue that his proof is fallacious. However, I also contend that the analysis and ultimate rejection of his proof clarifies the fundamental issues that are at stake in the debate between the reductionist and haecceitist solutions to the problem of trans-world identity. These issues hinge on the ability of modal logic and possible worlds semantics to draw a hard and fast distinction between the logic and the metaphysics of modal logic. I shall claim that the considerations in this paper call into question the viability of such a distinction.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sara Negri (2011). Proof Analysis: A Contribution to Hilbert's Last Problem. Cambridge University Press.
Carlo Cellucci (2008). Why Proof? What is a Proof? In Giovanna Corsi & Rossella Lupacchini (eds.), Deduction, Computation, Experiment. Exploring the Effectiveness of Proof, pp. 1-27. Springer.
Pavel Hrubeš (2007). Lower Bounds for Modal Logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (3):941-958.
Anna Maidens, Particles and the Perversely Philosophical Schoolchild: Rigid Designation, Haecceitism and Statistics.
H. Kushida & M. Okada (2003). A Proof-Theoretic Study of the Correspondence of Classical Logic and Modal Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 68 (4):1403-1414.
Jens Johansson (2007). Non-Reductionism and Special Concern. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (4):641 – 657.
Alessandro Torza (2011). A Characterization of Haecceitism. Analytic Philosophy 52 (4):262-266.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #21,805 of 549,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?