In Barry Loewer & Jonathan Schaffer (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to David Lewis. Blackwell (forthcoming)
|Abstract||Many contemporary philosophers accept Hume's Dictum (HD), according to which there are no metaphysically necessary connections between distinct, intrinsically typed entities. Tacit in Lewis's work is a potential motivation for HD, according to which one should accept HD as presupposed by the best account of the range of metaphysical possibilities---namely, a combinatorial account, applied to spatiotemporal fundamentalia. Here I elucidate and assess this Ludovician motivation for HD. After refining HD and surveying its key, recurrent role in Lewis’s work, I present Lewis’s appeal to HD as providing a broadly axiomatic generating basis for the space of metaphysical modality, and canvas the prima facie advantages of the resulting combinatorial principle---HD (L-combinatorialism)---as being principled, extensionally adequate and modally reductive. Most criticisms of Lewis's combinatorialism have targeted seeming ways in which the theory overgenerates the desired space; I rather argue that HD (L-combinatorialism) seriously undergenerates the desired space in three different ways. For each way I argue that available means of overcoming the undergeneration either fail to close the gap, undermine the claim that HD (L-combinatorialism) is a principled generator of metaphysical modal space, undermine the reductive status of Lewis's combinatorialism, or call into question the truth of HD.|
|Keywords||David Lewis combinatorial account of modality metaphysical modality metaphysical possibility necessity Hume Hume's dictum combinatorialism necessary connections Humeanism|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Efird & Tom Stoneham (2006). Combinatorialism and the Possibility of Nothing. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):269 – 280.
Jessica M. Wilson (2010). What is Hume's Dictum, and Why Believe It? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (3):595-637.
Jennifer Wang (forthcoming). From Combinatorialism to Primitivism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy:1-20.
Daniel Stoljar (2007). Distinctions in Distinction. In Jesper Kallestrup & Jakob Hohwy (eds.), Being Reduced: New Essays on Causation and Explanation in the Special Sciences. Oxford University Press.
Peter Kail (2003). Conceivability and Modality in Hume: A Lemma in an Argument in Defense of Skeptical Realism. Hume Studies 29 (1):43--61.
Theodore Sider (2005). Another Look at Armstrong's Combinatorialism. Noûs 39 (4):679–695.
Charles Pigden & Rebecca E. B. Entwisle (2012). Spread Worlds, Plenitude and Modal Realism: A Problem for David Lewis. In James Maclaurin (ed.), Rationis Defensor.
Feng Ye (2009). A Naturalistic Interpretation of the Kripkean Modality. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (3):454-470.
Nicola Ciprotti & Luca Moretti (2009). Logical Pluralism is Compatible with Monism About Metaphysical Modality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2):275-284.
Ross P. Cameron (2012). Why Lewis's Analysis of Modality Succeeds in its Reductive Ambitions. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (8).
Susan Schneider (2001). Alien Individuals, Alien Universals, and Armstrong'scombinatorial Theory of Possibility. Southern Journal of Philosophy 39 (4):575-593.
David Chua, Metaphysical Accounts of Modality: A Comparative Evaluation of Lewisian and Neo-Aristotelian Modal Metaphysics.
Added to index2012-06-08
Total downloads58 ( #17,268 of 556,803 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #5,659 of 556,803 )
How can I increase my downloads?