more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
According to some theorists, the forward-looking 'indicatives' (those with a 'will' in the main clause) belong with the 'subjunctives' (those with a 'would' in the main clause), and not with the other 'indicatives'.
Gist of Idea
Maybe forward-looking indicatives are best classed with the subjunctives
Source
Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 1)
Book Ref
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.2
A Reaction
[She cites Gibbard, Dudman and 1988 Bennett; Jackson defends the indicative/subjunctive division, and recent Bennett defends it too] It is plausible to say that 'If you will do x' is counterfactual, since it hasn't actually happened.
Related Idea
Idea 14270 Simple indicatives about past, present or future do seem to form a single semantic kind [Edgington]
| 9014 | Some conditionals can be explained just by negation and conjunction: not(p and not-q) [Quine] |
| 14360 | Possible worlds for subjunctives (and dispositions), and no-truth for indicatives? [Jackson] |
| 13770 | There are many different conditional mental states, and different conditional speech acts [Edgington] |
| 14270 | Simple indicatives about past, present or future do seem to form a single semantic kind [Edgington] |
| 14269 | Maybe forward-looking indicatives are best classed with the subjunctives [Edgington] |
| 13716 | 'If B hadn't shot L someone else would have' if false; 'If B didn't shoot L, someone else did' is true [Sider] |