The methodology of genuine modal realism
Synthese 162 (1):37 - 52 (2008)
| Abstract | David Lewis’s genuine modal realism is a controversial thesis in modal metaphysics. Charles Chihara and Ross Cameron have each argued that Lewis’s defence of his thesis involves his committing serious methodological errors; in particular, that his replies to two well-known and important objections are question-begging. Scott Shalkowski has further argued that Lewis’s attempt to analyse modal talk in non-modal terms is viciously circular. This paper considers the methodology which Lewis uses to argue for his thesis, and the paper tries to show that it is guilty of no methodological errors. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn Divers & Joseph Melia (2002). The Analytic Limit of Genuine Modal Realism. Mind 111 (441):15-36.
Michael Hymers (1991). Something Less Than Paradise: The Magic of Modal Realism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 69 (3):251 – 263.
John Divers (1999). A Genuine Realist Theory of Advanced Modalizing. Mind 108 (430):217-239.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2004). Modal Realism and Metaphysical Nihilism. Mind 113 (452):683-704.
Alexander Paseau (2006). Genuine Modal Realism and Completeness. Mind 115 (459):721-730.
Ross P. Cameron (2007). Lewisian Realism: Methodology, Epistemology, and Circularity. Synthese 156 (1):143 - 159.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads73 ( #11,729 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,489 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
