Philosophical Papers 33 (1):35-66 (2004)
|Abstract||Closest-possible-world analyses of counterfactuals suffer from what has been called the ‘problem of counterpossibles’: some counterfactuals with metaphysically impossible antecedents seem plainly false, but the proposed analyses imply that they are all (vacuously) true. One alleged solution to this problem is the addition of impossible worlds. In this paper, I argue that the closest possible or impossible world analyses that have recently been suggested suffer from the ‘new problem of counterpossibles’: the proposed analyses imply that some plainly true counterpossibles (viz., ‘counterlogicals’) are false. After motivating and presenting the ‘new problem’, I give reasons to think that the most plausible objection to my argument is not compelling.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter J. King (1993). Lycan on Lewis and Meinong. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 93:193 - 201.
Richard Davis (2006). God and Counterpossibles. Religious Studies 42 (4):371 - 391.
Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno (forthcoming). Why Counterpossibles Are Non-Trivial. In Vincent Hendricks (ed.), Synthese volume.
Sonia Roca-Royes (2011). Modal Knowledge and Counterfactual Knowledge. Logique Et Analyse 54 (216):537-552.
Jesper Kallestrup (2009). Conceivability, Rigidity and Counterpossibles. Synthese 171 (3):377 - 386.
Jeffrey C. King (2007). What in the World Are the Ways Things Might Have Been? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 133 (3):443 - 453.
Aidan McGlynn (2012). The Problem of True-True Counterfactuals. Analysis 72 (2):276-285.
Daniel H. Cohen (1987). The Problem of Counterpossibles. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (1):91-101.
Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno (2013). Remarks on Counterpossibles. Synthese 190 (4):639-660.
Added to index2009-02-25
Total downloads20 ( #68,206 of 722,780 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,644 of 722,780 )
How can I increase my downloads?