Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Metaphysical and absolute possibility

  • Justin Clarke-DoaneEmail author
S.I. : New Directions in the Epistemology of Modality
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

It is widely alleged that metaphysical possibility is “absolute” possibility (Kripke in Naming and necessity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1980; Lewis in On the plurality of worlds, Blackwell, Oxford, 1986; van Inwagen in Philos Stud 92:68–84, 1997; Rosen, in: Gendler and Hawthorne (eds) Conceivability and possibility, Clarendon, Oxford, 2002, p 16; Stalnaker, in: Stalnaker (ed) Ways a world might be: metaphysical and anti-metaphysical essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp 201–215; Williamson in Can J Philos 46:453–492, 2016). Kripke calls metaphysical necessity “necessity in the highest degree” (1980, p. 99). Van Inwagen claims that if P is metaphysically possible, then it is possible “tout court. Possible simpliciter. Possible period…. possib(le) without qualification (1997, p. 72).” And Stalnaker writes, “we can agree with Frank Jackson, David Chalmers, Saul Kripke, David Lewis, and most others who allow themselves to talk about possible worlds at all, that metaphysical necessity is necessity in the widest sense (2003, p. 203).” What exactly does the thesis that metaphysical possibility is absolute amount to? Is it true? In this article, I argue that, assuming that the thesis is not merely terminological, and lacking in any metaphysical interest, it is an article of faith. I conclude with the suggestion that metaphysical possibility may lack the metaphysical significance that is widely attributed to it.

Keywords

Metaphysics Modal Modality Necessity Possibility Metaphysical Logical Necessity of identity Absolute possibility Absolute necessity Metaphysical possibility Metaphysical necessity Logical possibility Logical necessity Epistemic Epistemic possibility Intelligibility Mathematics Philosophy of mathematics Counterpossible Counterpossibles Counterfactual Counterfactuals Williamson Kripke Lewis Chalmers Stalnaker Jackson Deflationism V = L Godel Sider Metaphilosophy 

Notes

References

  1. Bacon, A. (2018). The broadest necessity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47, 733–783.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9447-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balaguer, M. (1995). Platonism and anti-platonism in mathematics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bealer, G. (2002). Modal epistemology and the rationalist renaissance. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 71–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berto, F. (2013). Impossible worlds. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/impossible-worlds/.
  5. Bostock, D. (1988). Necessary truth and a priori truth. Mind, 49, 343–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess, J. (2009). Philosophical logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, R. (2006). Comment on ‘Kripke’s (Alleged) argument for the necessity of identity statements’. Wo’s Weblog. Online at: https://www.umsu.de/wo/archive/2006/08/09/Kripke_s__Alleged__Argument_for_the_Necessity_of_Identity_Statements.
  8. Cartwright, R. (1997). On singular propositions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Supplementary, 23, 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clarke-Doane, J. (2017). Modal objectivity. Noûs.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12205.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke-Doane, J. (Forthcoming A). Morality and mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke-Doane, J. (Forthcoming B). Objectivity and evaluation. In C. Cowie & R Rowland (Eds.), Companions in guilt arguments in metaethics. Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics, and modality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Fine, K. (2002). The varieties of necessity. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and Possibility (pp. 253–281). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbard, A. (1975). Contingent identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Girle, R. (2017). Modal logics and philosophy (2nd ed.). Chicago: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Glazier, M. (Forthcoming). The difference between epistemic and metaphysical necessity. Synthese.Google Scholar
  18. Godel, K. (1947). What is Cantor’s continuum problem? American Mathematical Monthly, 54, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hale, B. (1996). Absolute necessities. Philosophical Perspectives, 10, 93–117.Google Scholar
  20. Hale, B. (2013). Necessary beings: An essay on ontology, modality and the relations between them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaplan, D. (1989a). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kaplan, D. (1989b) Afterthoughts. In Almog, Perry & Wettstein (Eds.).Google Scholar
  23. Kment, B. (2014). Modality and explanatory reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kripke, S. (1971). Identity and Necessity. In M. K. Munitz (Ed.), Identity and individuation (pp. 161–191). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Melia, J. (2003). Modality. New York: Acumen.Google Scholar
  28. Mortensen, C. (1989). Anything is possible. Erkenntnis, 30, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murray, A., & Wilson, J. (2012). Relativized Metaphysical Modality. In K. Bennett & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nolan, D. (2011). The extent of metaphysical necessity. Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 313–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Priest, G. (2008). An introduction to non-classical logic: From if to is (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Priest, G. (2016). Thinking the impossible. Philosophical Studies, 10, 2649–2662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rayo, A. (Manuscript). The open-endedness of logical space.Google Scholar
  34. Rosen, G. (1990). Modal fictionalism. Mind., 99, 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosen, G. (2002). A study of modal deviance. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  36. Rumfitt, I. (2010). Logical Necessity. In B. Hale & A. Hoffmann (Eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rumfitt, I. (2015). The boundary stones of thought: An essay in the philosophy of logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stalnaker, R. (Ed.). (2003). Conceptual truth and metaphysical necessity. In Ways a world might be: Metaphysical and anti-metaphysical essays (pp. 201–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strohminger, M., & Yli-Vakkuri, J. (2017). The epistemology of modality. Analysis, 77, 825–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Fraassen, B. (1977). The only necessity is verbal necessity. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Inwagen, P. (1997). Modal epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 92, 68–84.Google Scholar
  43. Vetter, B. (2015). Potentiality: From dispositions to modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vetter, B. (2016). Williamsonian modal epistemology, possibility-based. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46, 766–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Williamson, T. (2016). Modal science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46, 453–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, M. (1983). Why contingent identity is necessary. Philosophical Studies, 43, 301–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations