The Humphrey Objection and the Problem of De Re Modality
Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||In this paper I consider Saul Kripke’s famous Humphrey objection to David Lewis’s views on de re modality and argue that responses to this objection currently on the market fail to mitigate its force in any significant way.|
|Keywords||David Lewis Modality Humphrey Objection De Re Modality Counterpart Theory|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Lilli Alanen (1991). Descartes, Conceivability, and Logical Modality. In Tamara Horowitz (ed.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Rowman and Littlefield.
Tom Baldwin (2002). The Inaugural Address: Kantian Modality. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76:1 - 24.
Andrea Sauchelli (2010). Concrete Possible Worlds and Counterfactual Conditionals: Lewis Versus Williamson on Modal Knowledge. Synthese 176 (3):345-359.
By David A. Denby (2006). In Defence of Magical Ersatzism. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (223):161–174.
Jonathan D. Jacobs (2010). A Powers Theory of Modality: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Reject Possible Worlds. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 151 (2):227-248.
Ross P. Cameron (2012). Why Lewis's Analysis of Modality Succeeds in its Reductive Ambitions. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (8).
Cian Dorr (2005). Propositions and Counterpart Theory. Analysis 65 (3):210–218.
Jiri Benovsky (2005). Branching Versus Divergent Possible Worlds. Kriterion 19:12-20.
David A. Denby (2006). In Defence of Magical Ersatzism. In Philosophical Quarterly.
Added to index2009-07-05
Total downloads102 ( #7,535 of 722,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?