Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:30:40.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

C. I. LEWIS AND THE BENACERRAF PROBLEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2017

Bob Fischer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Realists about modality offer an attractive semantics for modal discourse in terms of possible worlds, but standard accounts of the worlds – as properties, propositions, or causally isolated concreta – invoke entities with which we can't interact. If realism is true, how can we know anything about modal matters? Let's call this “the Benacerraf Problem.” I suggest that C. I. Lewis has an intriguing answer to it. Given that we're willing to disentangle some of Lewis's insights from his phenomenalism, we can take the following line. If the Benacerraf Problem is a genuine one, then it threatens all knowledge – not just modal knowledge. But then it leads to a general and implausible form of skepticism, not a limited and more plausible debunking argument. Hence, whatever we're willing to say about skepticism we should say about the Benacerraf Problem.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 154 - 165
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. M. 1989. A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baldwin, T. 2007. ‘C. I. Lewis: Pragmatism and Analysis.’ In The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology, pp. 178–95. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1973. ‘Mathematical Truth.’ Journal of Philosophy, 70: 661–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark-Doane, J. Forthcoming. “What is the Benacerraf Problem?” In Pataut, F. (ed.), New Perspectives on the Philosophy of Paul Benacerraf: Truth, Objects, Infinity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. 2007. ‘Entitlement and Rationality.’ Synthese, 157: 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. I. 1912. ‘Implication and the Algebra of Logic.’ Mind, 21: 522–31.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. 1946. An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, The Paul Carus Lectures. LaSalle: The Open Court Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. 1954. ‘A Comment (On “The Verification Theory of Meaning”).’ The Philosophical Review, 63: 193–6.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. 1955. ‘Realism or Phenomenalism?’ The Philosophical Review, 64: 233–47.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. 1970a. ‘Logic and Pragmatism.’ In Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis, pp. 3–19. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. 1970b. ‘Meaning and Action.’ In Collected Papers of Clarence Iriving Lewis, pp. 87–91. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Brien, L. 2007. Self-Knowing Agents. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connor, T. 2008. Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1999. Being Known. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar