But this changes nothing. The decisive claim is that in assessing the counterfactuals implicit in (A) we do not have to take sceptical worlds into the reckoning, whereas we must do that in assessing (B) because (B) explicitly speaks of them. Accept, provisionally, what is here said about (B) and focus on the claim about (A). Nobody should make it unless they are already in a position to assert that the actual world is not a sceptical world. And with that we are back to the choice between impotence and redundancy.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Bare Metaphysical Possibility of Bare Dispositions.Jennifer McKitrick - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):349–369.
Bare Particulars and Individuation Reply to Mertz.J. P. Moreland & Timothy Pickavance - 2003 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (1):1 – 13.
The Price of Insisting That Quantum Mechanics is Complete.P. D. Magnus - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):257-267.
Perspectives on Possibilities: Contextualism, Relativism, or What?Kent Bach - 2009 - In Andy Egan & B. Weatherson (eds.), Epistemic Modality. Oxford University Press.
Context Dependence and Implicit Arguments in Existentials.Itamar Francez - 2010 - Linguistics and Philosophy 33 (1):11-30.
Double Quantification and the Meaning of Shenme 'What' in Chinese Bare Conditionals.Jo-Wang Lin - 1999 - Linguistics and Philosophy 22 (6):573-593.
Against Zero-Dimensional Material Objects (and Other Bare Particulars).Daniel Giberman - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 160 (2):305-321.
Foregrounding Desire: A Defense of Kant's Incorporation Thesis.Tamar Schapiro - 2011 - Journal of Ethics 15 (3):147-167.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads44 ( #116,706 of 2,158,677 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #354,589 of 2,158,677 )
How can I increase my downloads?