Canonical Counterpart Theory
Analysis 42 (1):33 - 37 (1982)
| Abstract | In a recent article in Analysis, Graeme Hunter and William Seager (1981) attempt to rescue counterpart theory (CT) from some objections of Hazen 1979. They see these objections as arising from ‘uncritical use of the translation scheme originally proposed by Lewis’, and intend to meet them by refraining from use of that scheme. But they do not offer a new scheme; they say ‘…it is no more necessary to have one to capture the sense of modal idiom than it is to capture the sense of quantificational idiom…Appeal to truth value is the single most important criterion of correct translation’ (Hunter and Seager 1981:72). Thus, where the scheme of Lewis (1968) translates a truth by a falsehood or conversely, Hunter and Seager simply produce a sentence which they claim to be a better translation, without articulating any structural principles they employ to arrive at their candidate. A friend of CT should not be happy with this procedure. Let Lm be first-order modal language and Lc be the language of counterpart theory. Sentences of Lc are intended to interpret or elucidate the meanings of Lm-sentences in the strong sense that they should be the outputs of an adequate theory of meaning, which we can formulate as a model theory, for Lm, written in Lc plus set theory. The interest of CT resides in its potential to provide an alternative approach to the model theory of modal logic, and from the clauses of any such alternative model theory we should be able to read off a translation scheme for Lm into Lc, just as we can in the standard case. If CT’s motivation is sound, which Hunter and Seager do not dispute, yet there is no translation scheme and so no counterpart-theoretic model theory, one might suspect some defect in the original language Lm. And in fact, Hunter and Seager find certain Lm-sentences multiply ambiguous with respect to Lc; but if a counterpart-theoretic model theory is possible, to say.. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAlessandro Torza (2011). Models for Counterparts. Axiomathes 21 (4):553-579.
Graeme Hunter & William Seager (1981). The Discreet Charm of Counterpart Theory. Analysis 41 (2):73 - 76.
Michael Fara & Timothy Williamson (2005). Counterparts and Actuality. Mind 114 (453):1-30.
Murali Ramachandran (2008). Kripkean Counterpart Theory. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):89-106.
William Boos (2003). Virtual Modality. Synthese 136 (3):435 - 491.
Todd Buras (2006). Counterpart Theory, Natural Properties, and Essentialism. Journal of Philosophy 103 (1):27-42.
Murali Ramachandran (1989). An Alternative Translation Scheme for Counterpart Theory. Analysis 49 (3):131 - 141.
M. J. Cresswell (2004). Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
M. J. Cresswell (2004). Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
M. J. Cresswell (2004). Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
Sam Cowling (2012). Haecceitism for Modal Realists. Erkenntnis 77 (3):399-417.
Delia Graff Fara (2008). Relative-Sameness Counterpart Theory. Review of Symbolic Logic 1 (2):167-189.
Alessandro Torza (2013). How to Lewis a Kripke-Hintikka. Synthese 190 (4):743-779.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads8 ( #123,092 of 549,078 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,078 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
