Canonical Counterpart Theory

Analysis 42 (1):33 - 37 (1982)
Abstract
In a recent article in Analysis, Graeme Hunter and William Seager (1981) attempt to rescue counterpart theory (CT) from some objections of Hazen 1979. They see these objections as arising from ‘uncritical use of the translation scheme originally proposed by Lewis’, and intend to meet them by refraining from use of that scheme. But they do not offer a new scheme; they say ‘…it is no more necessary to have one to capture the sense of modal idiom than it is to capture the sense of quantificational idiom…Appeal to truth value is the single most important criterion of correct translation’ (Hunter and Seager 1981:72). Thus, where the scheme of Lewis (1968) translates a truth by a falsehood or conversely, Hunter and Seager simply produce a sentence which they claim to be a better translation, without articulating any structural principles they employ to arrive at their candidate. A friend of CT should not be happy with this procedure. Let Lm be first-order modal language and Lc be the language of counterpart theory. Sentences of Lc are intended to interpret or elucidate the meanings of Lm-sentences in the strong sense that they should be the outputs of an adequate theory of meaning, which we can formulate as a model theory, for Lm, written in Lc plus set theory. The interest of CT resides in its potential to provide an alternative approach to the model theory of modal logic, and from the clauses of any such alternative model theory we should be able to read off a translation scheme for Lm into Lc, just as we can in the standard case. If CT’s motivation is sound, which Hunter and Seager do not dispute, yet there is no translation scheme and so no counterpart-theoretic model theory, one might suspect some defect in the original language Lm. And in fact, Hunter and Seager find certain Lm-sentences multiply ambiguous with respect to Lc; but if a counterpart-theoretic model theory is possible, to say..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/42.1.33
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,727
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Modal Paradox: Parts and Counterparts, Points and Counterpoints.Nathan Salmon - 1986 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 11 (1):75-120.
The Logic of Counterpart Theory with Actuality.Adam Rigoni & Richmond H. Thomason - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic (1):1-31.
Thisness and Vagueness.Graeme Forbes - 1983 - Synthese 54 (2):235-259.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Models for Counterparts.Alessandro Torza - 2011 - Axiomathes 21 (4):553-579.
Kripkean Counterpart Theory.Murali Ramachandran - 2008 - Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):89-106.
Virtual Modality. [REVIEW]William Boos - 2003 - Synthese 136 (3):435 - 491.
Counterpart Theory, Natural Properties, and Essentialism.Todd Buras - 2006 - Journal of Philosophy 103 (1):27-42.
Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory.M. J. Cresswell - 2004 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
Haecceitism for Modal Realists.Sam Cowling - 2012 - Erkenntnis 77 (3):399-417.
Relative-Sameness Counterpart Theory.Delia Graff Fara - 2008 - Review of Symbolic Logic 1 (2):167-189.
How to Lewis a Kripke-Hintikka.Alessandro Torza - 2013 - Synthese 190 (4):743-779.
Added to PP index
2010-12-22

Total downloads
107 ( #48,500 of 2,197,331 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #97,207 of 2,197,331 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature