Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 275–303 | Cite as

Validity and Necessity

  • Roberta Ballarin
Article

Abstract

In this paper I argue against the commonly received view that Kripke’s formal Possible World Semantics (PWS) reflects the adoption of a metaphysical interpretation of the modal operators. I consider in detail Kripke’s three main innovations vis-à-vis Carnap’s PWS: a new view of the worlds, variable domains of quantification, and the adoption of a notion of universal validity. I argue that all these changes are driven by the natural technical development of the model theory and its related notion of validity: they are dictated by merely formal considerations, not interpretive concerns. I conclude that Kripke’s model theoretic semantics does not induce a metaphysical reading of necessity, and is formally adequate independently of the specific interpretation of the modal operators.

Keywords

Carnap Kripke modal logic necessity possible world semantics validity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almog, J. (1986) Naming without necessity, J. Philos. 83, 210–242. Google Scholar
  2. Barcan, R. C. (1946) A functional calculus of first order based on strict implication, J. Symbolic Logic 11, 1–16. Google Scholar
  3. Burgess, J. P. (1999) Which modal logic is the right one?, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 40, 81–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess, J. P., Kripke Models, available at http://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Kripke1.doc.
  5. Burgess, J. P., Which Modal Models are the Right Ones (for Logical Necessity)?, available at http://www.princeton.edu/~jburgess/Hintikka.doc.
  6. Carnap, R. (1946) Modalities and quantification, J. Symbolic Logic 11, 33–64. Google Scholar
  7. Carnap, R. (1947) Meaning and Necessity, 2nd ed with supplements, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1956. Google Scholar
  8. Carnap, R. (1963) Language, modal logic, and semantics, in P. A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, Open Court, La Salle, IL, pp. 889–944. Google Scholar
  9. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1975) On the primary and secondary semantics of logical necessity, J. Philos. Logic 4, 13–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Copeland, B. J. (2002) The genesis of possible worlds semantics, J. Philos. Logic 31, 99–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gödel, K. (1930) The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic, reprinted in Heijenoort (ed.), 1967: From Frege to Gödel, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 582–591. Google Scholar
  12. Goldblatt, R. (2003) Mathematical modal logic: A view of its evolution, J. Appl. Logic 1, 309–392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hintikka, J. (1961) Modality and quantification, Theoria 27, 119–128. Google Scholar
  14. Hintikka, J. (1963) The modes of modality, Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 65–79; reprinted in M. J. Loux (ed.), The Possible and the Actual, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp. 65–79. Google Scholar
  15. Hintikka, J. and Sandu, G. (1995) The fallacies of the new theory of reference, Synthese 104, 245–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jónsson, B. and Tarski, A. (1951) Boolean algebras with operators. Part I, Amer. J. Math. 73, 891–939. Google Scholar
  17. Jónsson, B. and Tarski, A. (1952) Boolean algebras with operators. Part II, Amer. J. Math. 74, 127–162. Google Scholar
  18. Kanger, S. (1957) Provability in Logic, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm. Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, D. (1986) Opacity, in Hahn and Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W.V. Quine, Open Court, La Salle, IL, pp. 229–289. Google Scholar
  20. Kripke, S. A. (1959) A completeness theorem in modal logic, J. Symbolic Logic 24, 1–14. Google Scholar
  21. Kripke, S. A. (1962) The undecidability of monadic modal quantification theory, Z. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 8, 113–116. Google Scholar
  22. Kripke, S. A. (1963a) Semantical analysis of modal logic I, Z. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 9, 67–96. Google Scholar
  23. Kripke, S. A. (1963b) Semantical considerations on modal logic, Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 83–94; reprinted in L. Linsky (ed.), 1971: Reference and Modality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 63–72. Google Scholar
  24. Kripke, S. A. (1965) Semantical analysis of modal logic II, in J. W. Addison, L. Henkin and A. Tarski (eds.), Symposium on the Theory of Models, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, pp. 206–220. Google Scholar
  25. Kripke, S. A. (1967a) Review of Lemmon, Mathematical Reviews 34, 1021–1022. Google Scholar
  26. Kripke, S. A. (1967b) Review of Lemmon, Mathematical Reviews 34, 1022. Google Scholar
  27. Lemmon, E. J. (1966a) Algebraic semantics for modal logics I, J. Symbolic Logic 31, 46–65. Google Scholar
  28. Lemmon, E. J. (1966b) Algebraic semantics for modal logics II, J. Symbolic Logic 31, 191–218. Google Scholar
  29. Lindström, S. (1996) Modality without worlds: Kanger’s early semantics for modal logic, in S. Lindström, R. Sliwinski and J. Österberg (eds.), Odds and Ends. Philosophical Essays Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 266–284. Google Scholar
  30. Lindström, S. (1998) An exposition and development of Kanger’s early semantics for modal logic, in P. W. Humphreys and J. H. Fetzer (eds.), The New Theory of Reference: Kripke, Marcus, and its Origins, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 203–233. Google Scholar
  31. Lindström, S. (2001) Quine’s interpretation problem and the early development of possible worlds semantics, in E. Carlson and R. Sliwinski (eds.), Omnium-Gatherum. Philosophical Essays Dedicated to Jan Österberg on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 187–213. Google Scholar
  32. Makinson, D. (1966a) How meaningful are modal operators?, Australasian J. Philos. 44, 331–337. Google Scholar
  33. Makinson, D. (1966b) On some completeness theorems in modal logic, Z. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 12, 379–384. Google Scholar
  34. Montague, R. (1960) Logical necessity, physical necessity, ethics, and quantifiers, Inquiry 3, 259–269. Google Scholar
  35. Neale, S. (2000) On a Milestone of empiricism, in Orenstein and Kotakto (eds.), Knowledge, Language, and Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Great Britain, pp. 237–346. Google Scholar
  36. Prior, A. N. (1956) Modality and quantification in S5, J. Symbolic Logic 21, 60–62. Google Scholar
  37. Quine, W. V. (1947) The problem of interpreting modal logic, J. Symbolic Logic 12, 43–48. Google Scholar
  38. Quine, W. V. (1951) Two dogmas of empiricism, Philosophical Review 60, 20–43; reprinted in Quine, 1953: From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; 2nd revised edition, 1961; 3rd edition with a new Foreword, 1980, pp. 20–46. Google Scholar
  39. Quine, W. V. (1953a) Reference and modality, in From a Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA; 2nd revised edition, 1961; 3rd edition with a new Foreword, 1980, pp. 139–59; reprinted in L. Linsky (ed.), 1971: Reference and Modality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 17–34. Google Scholar
  40. Quine, W. V. (1953b) Three grades of modal involvement, in Proceedings of the XIth International Congress of Philosophy, 14, Brussels, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam; reprinted in Quine, 1966: Selected Logic Papers, Random House, New York, pp. 156–74. Google Scholar
  41. Quine, W. V. (1954) Carnap and logical truth, first published in English in 1960, Synthese 12; reprinted in Quine, 1966: The Ways of Paradox, Random House, New York, pp. 107–132. Google Scholar
  42. Quine, W. V. (1970) Philosophy of Logic, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Google Scholar
  43. Thomason, S. K. (1973) A new representation of S5, Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 14, 281–284. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySMUDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations