What might be and what might have been

In S.-J. Conrad & S. Imhof (eds.), Strawson - Concept and Object. ontos (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The article is an extended comment on Strawson’s neglected paper ‘Maybes and Might Have Beens’, in which he suggests that both statements about what may be the case and statements about what might have been the case can be understood epistemically. We argue that Strawson is right about the first sort of statements but wrong about the second. Finally, we discuss some of Strawson’s claims which are related to positions of Origin Essentialism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On Strawson on Kantian Apperception.Dennis Schulting - 2008 - South African Journal of Philosophy 27 (3):257-271.
Commentary on Strawson's target article. Stapp - 2006 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 13 (10-11):163-169.
Strawson on 'if' and ⊃.Gunnar Björnsson - 2008 - South African Journal of Philosophy 27 (3):24-35.
Strawson's analysis of identity statements.Ronald Suter - 1971 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (4):597-599.
Strawson on Other Minds.Joel Smith - 2011 - In Joel Smith & Peter Sullivan (eds.), Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism. Oxford University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
384 (#52,928)

6 months
14 (#184,493)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Moritz Schulz
Universität Hamburg
Benjamin Schnieder
University of Vienna

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references