Counterparts, Essences and Quantified Modal Logic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2022.001Słowa kluczowe
quantified modal logic, counterpart theory, essentialism, cheap haecceitism, David LewisAbstrakt
It is commonplace to formalize propositions involving essential properties of objects in a language containing modal operators and quantifiers. Assuming David Lewis’s counterpart theory as a semantic framework for quantified modal logic, I will show that certain statements discussed in the metaphysics of modality de re, such as the sufficiency condition for essential properties, cannot be faithfully formalized. A natural modification of Lewis’s translation scheme seems to be an obvious solution but is not acceptable for various reasons. Consequently, the only safe way to express some intuitions regarding essential properties is to use directly the language of counterpart theory without modal operators.
Bibliografia
Bigaj, T., 2016, “Essentialism and modern physics”, pages 145–178 in T. Bigaj and C. Wüthrich (eds.), Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics, Brill/Rodopi, Leiden–Boston. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004310827_008
Fine, K., 1994, “Essence and modality”, pages 1–16 in Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 8, Logic and Language.
Garson, J. (2018), “Modal logic”, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2018 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/logic-modal/.
Glick, D., 2016, “Minimal structural essentialism”, pages 1–28 in A. Guay and T. Pradeau (eds.), Individuals Across the Sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199382514.003.0012
Lewis, D., 1968, “Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic”, The Journal of Philosophy 65 (5): 113–126. Reprinted as [Lewis 1983]. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.2307/2024555
Lewis, D., 1983, “Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic” with Postscript, pages 26–46 in Philosophical Papers, vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0195032047.003.0003
Lewis, D., 1986, On the Plurality of Worlds, Blackwell, Oxford.
Mackie, P., 2006, How Things Might Have Been. Individuals, Kinds, and Essential Properties, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Skow, B., 2008, “Haecceitism, anti-haecceitism and possible worlds”, Philosophical Quarterly 58: 98–107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.516.x
Skow, B., 2011, “More on haecceitism and possible worlds”, Analytic Philosophy 52 (4): 267–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-960X.2011.00533.x
Stalnaker, R., 1976, “Possible worlds”, Noûs 10 (1): 65–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2214477
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Prawa autorskie (c) 2022 Logic and Logical Philosophy
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 1804
Liczba cytowań: 0
