European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 1 (2):25-36 (2005)
|Abstract||The standard view of metaphysical necessity is that it is truth in all possible worlds, and therefore that the correct modal logic for metaphysical necessity is S5, in models of which all worlds are accessible from each other. I argue that S5 cannot be the correct logic for metaphysical necessity because accessibility is not symmetric: there are possible worlds that are accessible from ours but from which our world is not accessible. There are (or could be) some individuals who, if they had not existed, could not have existed. Once the possibility of such individuals is lost, it is gone forever.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel Nolan, Modal Fictionalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Takashi Yagisawa (2010). Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise. Oxford University Press.
George Darby & Duncan Watson (2010). Lewis's Principle of Recombination: Reply to Efird and Stoneham. Dialectica 64 (3):435-445.
M. J. Garcia-Encinas (2012). On Categories and A Posteriori Necessity: A Phenomenological Echo. Metaphilosophy 43 (1-2):147-164.
Stephen Leeds (2007). Physical and Metaphysical Necessity. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (4):458–485.
Michael Jubien (2009). Possibility. Oxford University Press.
J. Robert G. Williams (2007). The Possibility of Onion Worlds: Rebutting an Argument for Structural Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):193 – 203.
Scott Soames (2011). Kripke on Epistemic and Metaphysical Possibility: Two Routes to the Necessary Aposteriori. In Alan Berger (ed.), Saul Kripke. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads30 ( #40,877 of 549,122 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,263 of 549,122 )
How can I increase my downloads?