David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Karen Bennett & Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press 189 (2012)
It is commonly supposed that metaphysical modal claims are to be evaluated with respect to a single domain of possible worlds: a claim is metaphysically necessary just in case it is true in every possible world, and metaphysically possible just in case it is true in some possible world. We argue that the standard understanding is incorrect; rather, whether a given claim is metaphysically necessary or possible is relative to which world is indicatively actual. We motivate our view by attention to discussions in Salmon 1989 and Fine 2005, in which various data are taken to support rejecting the transitivity of accessibility (Salmon) and modal monism (Fine); we argue that relativized metaphysical modality can accommodate these data compatible with both standard modal logic(s) and modal monism. Noting an analogy with two-dimensional semantics, we argue that metaphysical modality has a complex structure, reflecting what is counterfactually possible, relative to each indicatively actual world. In arguing for the need for relativization, we are broadly on the same side as Crossley and Humberstone (1977) and Davies and Humberstone (1979); our contribution here is, first, to offer distinctively metaphysical reasons for relativization, and second, to show that relativization can be incorporated in ways minimally departing from standard modal logic(s).
|Keywords||metaphysical necessity modality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nicola Ciprotti & Luca Moretti (2009). Logical Pluralism is Compatible with Monism About Metaphysical Modality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2):275-284.
Heather Dyke (2007). Tenseless/Non-Modal Truthmakers for Tensed/Modal Truths. Logique Et Analyse 199:269-287.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2012). Counterfactuals and Modal Epistemology. Grazer Philosophische Studien 86 (1):93–115.
Anand Vaidya (2008). Modal Rationalism and Modal Monism. Erkenntnis 68 (2):191 - 212.
Thomas Kroedel (2012). Counterfactuals and the Epistemology of Modality. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (12).
Dorit Abusch (2012). Circumstantial and Temporal Dependence in Counterfactual Modals. Natural Language Semantics 20 (3):273-297.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2008). A New Definition of A Priori Knowledge: In Search of a Modal Basis. Metaphysica 9 (2):57-68.
Jessica M. Wilson (2015). Hume's Dictum and Metaphysical Modality: Lewis's Combinatorialism. In Barry Loewer & Jonathan Schaffer (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to David Lewis. Blackwell 138-158.
Feng Ye (2009). A Naturalistic Interpretation of the Kripkean Modality. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (3):454-470.
Reina Hayaki (2005). The Transience of Possibility. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 1 (2):25-36.
David Chua, Metaphysical Accounts of Modality: A Comparative Evaluation of Lewisian and Neo-Aristotelian Modal Metaphysics.
Ori Simchen (2013). The Barcan Formula in Metaphysics. Theoria 78 (3):375-392.
Stephen Biggs (2011). Abduction and Modality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):283-326.
M. J. Cresswell (2012). The World-Time Parallel: Tense and Modality in Logic and Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2011-04-12
Total downloads164 ( #7,395 of 1,699,438 )
Recent downloads (6 months)23 ( #31,130 of 1,699,438 )
How can I increase my downloads?