Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:53:54.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Williamson and simplicity in modal logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Theodore Sider
Theodore Sider*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Timothy Williamson, we should accept the simplest and most powerful second-order modal logic, and as a result accept an ontology of "bare possibilia". This general method for extracting ontology from logic is salutary, but its application in this case depends on a questionable assumption: that modality is a fundamental feature of the world.

Keywords

Williamsonmodalityfundamentalitynecessitism
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 46 , Issue 4-5: Special Issue: Williamson on Modality , August 2016 , pp. 683 - 698
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennett, Karen. 2016. Making Things Up. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Cameron, Ross P. 2010. “How to Have a Radically Minimal Ontology.” Philosophical Studies 151: 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David J., Manley, David, and Wasserman, Ryan, eds. 2009. Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cresswell, Max. 1991. “In Defence of the Barcan Formula.” Logique Et Analyse 135(136): 271–282.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, Shamik. 2014. “The Possibility of Physicalism.” Journal of Philosophy 111: 557–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, Cian. 2005. “What We Disagree about when We Disagree about Ontology.” In Fictionalism in Metaphysics, edited by Kalderon, Mark, 234–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorr, Cian. 2007. “There are No Abstract Objects.” In Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Sider, Theodore, Hawthorne, John and Zimmerman, Dean W., 32–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1977. “Postscript.” In Worlds, Times, and Selves, edited by Fine, Kit. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1985. "Plantinga on the Reduction of Possibilist Discourse." In Alvin Plantinga, edited by Tomberlin, J. and van Inwagen, Peter, 145–186. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1994. "Essence and Modality”. In Tomberlin, (1994), 1–16.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1995. “The Logic of Essence.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2001. “The Question of Realism.” Philosophers’ Imprint 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2009. “The Question of Ontology”. In Chalmers, et al. (2009), 157–177.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2012. “Guide to Ground.” In Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, edited by Correia, Fabrice and Schnieder, Benjamin, 37–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai. 2001. "Counterfactuals in a Dynamic Context”. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 123–152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1955. “The New Riddle of Induction.” In Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, edited by Goodman, Nelson, 59–83. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hazen, Allen. 1979. “Counterpart-theoretic Semantics for Modal Logic.” Journal of Philosophy 76: 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1972. "Naming and Necessity”. In Semantics of Natural Language, edited by Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, 253–355, 763–769. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1968. “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic.” Journal of Philosophy 65: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward N.. 1994. “In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic." In Tomberlin, (1994), 431–458.Google Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward N.. 1996. “In Defense of the Contingently Nonconcrete.” Philosophical Studies 84: 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycan, William. 2001. Real Conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1976. “Actualism and Possible Worlds.” Theoria 42: 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1983. “On Existentialism.” Philosophical Studies 44: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1971. Philosophy of Logic. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review 60: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. 2010. “Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.” In Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology, edited by Hale, Bob and Hoffmann, Aviv, 109–136. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1998. “Nonexistence.” Noûs 32: 277–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. 2009. “On What Grounds What." In Chalmers, et al. (2009), 347–383.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2009. “Ontological Realism.” In Chalmers, et al. (2009), 384–423.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2011. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2013a. “Reply to Kit Fine.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88: 738–746.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2013b. “Reply to Jonathan Schaffer.” Analysis 73: 760–770.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. "A Theory of Conditionals”. In Studies in Logical Theory: American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 2, edited byJames, Cornman, 98–112. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1986. “Possible Worlds and Situations.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 15(1): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomberlin, James, ed. 1994. Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Weatherson, Brian. 2003. “What Good Are Counterexamples?” Philosophical Studies 115: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1998. “Bare Possibilia.” Erkenntnis 48: 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2000. “Existence and Contingency.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100: 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2002. “Necessary Existents.” In Logic, Thought and Language, edited by O’Hear, A., 233–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2013. Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar