An Argument Against General Validity?

This paper argues that a prominent—and oft-thought to be persuasive—argument against general validity as the best account of validity for languages containing the actuality operator is flawed, the flaw arising out of inadequate attention to the formalisation of mood distinctions
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1002/tht3.1
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,865
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Saul Kripke (2010). Naming and Necessity. In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Philosophy. Routledge 431-433.
Lloyd Humberstone (2004). Two-Dimensional Adventures. Philosophical Studies 118 (1-2):17--65.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Jari I. Niemi (2005). Habermas and Validity Claims. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 13 (2):227 – 244.
Charlie Kurth (2011). Logic for Morals, Morals From Logic. Philosophical Studies 155 (2):161-180.
Andrea Iacona (2010). Validity and Interpretation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):247-264.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

17 ( #156,876 of 1,725,090 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #349,164 of 1,725,090 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.