Modal fictionalism and possible-worlds discourse
- 188 Downloads
The Brock-Rosen problem has been one of the most thoroughly discussed objections to the modal fictionalism bruited in Gideon Rosen’s ‘Modal Fictionalism’. But there is a more fundamental problem with modal fictionalism, at least as it is normally explained: the position does not resolve the tension that motivated it. I argue that if we pay attention to a neglected aspect of modal fictionalism, we will see how to resolve this tension—and we will also find a persuasive reply to the Brock-Rosen objection. Finally, I discuss an alternative reading of Rosen, and argue that this position is also able to fend off the Brock-Rosen objection.
KeywordsModality Fictionalism Brock-Rosen objection Possible world
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Brock, S. (2002). Fictionalism about fictional characters. Noûs, 36, 1–21.Google Scholar
- Chihara, C. (1998). The Worlds of Possibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Divers, J. (1999a). A modal fictionalist result. Noûs, 33, 317–346.Google Scholar
- Divers, J. (2002). Possible Worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Divers, J., & Hagen, J. (2006). The modal fictionalist predicament. In F. MacBride (Ed.), Identity and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Nolan, D. (2002). Modal fictionalism. In Stanford Encycopedia of Philosophy, E. Zalta (Ed.), Online at <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-modal/>. Google Scholar
- Rosen, G. (1993b). The refutation of nominalism (?). Philosophical Topics, 21, 149–186.Google Scholar