Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 495–523 | Cite as

Necessity and Apriority

  • Gordon Prescott Barnes
Article

Abstract

The classical view of the relationship between necessity and apriority, defended by Leibniz and Kant, is that all necessary truths are known a priori. The classical view is now almost universally rejected, ever since Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam discovered that there are necessary truths that are known only a posteriori. However, in recent years a new debate has emerged over the epistemology of these necessary a posteriori truths. According to one view – call it the neo-classical view – knowledge of a necessary truth always depends on at least one item of a priori knowledge. According to the rival view – call it the neoempiricist view – our knowledge of necessity is sometimes broadly empirical. In this paper I present and defend an argument against the neo-empiricist view. I argue that knowledge of the necessity of a necessary truth could not be broadly empirical.

Keywords

Good Explanation Visual Experience Inductive Inference Representational Content Sense Experience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achinstein P. (1983). The Nature of Scientific Explanation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bealer G. (1986). The Philosophical Limits of Scientific Essentialism. In: James, T. (eds) Philosophical Perspectives 1: Metaphysics, pp 289–366. Atascadero, Ridgeview Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Block N. and Robert S. (1999). Conceptual Analysis, Dualism and the Explanatory Gap. Philosophical Review 108: 1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bromberger S. (1966). Why Questions. In: Colodny, R. (eds) Mind and Cosmos: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, pp 92–93. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalmers D. (1996). The Conscious Mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers D. and Frank J. (2001). Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation. Philosophical Review 110: 315–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedman M. (1974). Explanation and Scientific Understanding. Journal of Philosophy 71: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gertler B. (2002). Explanatory Reduction, Conceptual Analysis and Conceivability Arguments about the Mind. Nous 36: 22–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hale B. (1999). On Some Arguments for the Necessity of Necessity. Mind 108: 23–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hempel C. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson F. (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kant, I. (1964): The Critique of Pure Reason, Norman Kemp Smith, trs., London: Macmillan, B3, p. 43Google Scholar
  13. Kitcher P. (1989). Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World. In: Philip, Kitcher: and Wesley, Salmon. (eds) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Scientific Explanation, pp 410–505. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  14. Kripke S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  15. Leibniz G. (1996). New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University Press, Jonathan Bennett, trs., CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Lipton P. (1991). Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. McFetridge, I. (1990): “Explicating `x knows a priori that p’”, in John Haldane (ed.), Logical Necessity. London: Aristotelian Society MonographsGoogle Scholar
  18. Mill John S. (1843). A System of Logic. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Putnam, H. (1975): ‘The Meaning of Meaning’, in Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–272Google Scholar
  20. Routley, R. and Routley V. (1969): `A Fallacy of Modality’, Nous, 129–153Google Scholar
  21. Salmon W. (1985). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Sidelle A. (1986). Necessity, Essence and Individuation: A Defense of Conventionalism. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  23. Sorensen R. (1992). Thought Experiments. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Whewell W. (1840). Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded Upon Their History, I. J.W. Parker and Son, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyState University of New York College at BrockportBrockportUSA

Personalised recommendations