more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Is there a difference between what Socrates could have been, and what he could have become?
Gist of Idea
What Socrates could have been, and could have become, are different?
Source
Alvin Plantinga (De Re and De Dicto [1969], p.44)
Book Ref
Plantinga,Alvin: 'Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality' [OUP 2003], p.44
A Reaction
That is, I take it, 1) how different might he have been in the past, given how he is now?, and 2) how different might he have been in the past, and now, if he had permanently diverged from how he is now? 1) has tight constraints on it.
| 14642 | Expressing modality about a statement is 'de dicto'; expressing it of property-possession is 'de re' [Plantinga] |
| 14643 | 'De dicto' true and 'de re' false is possible, and so is 'de dicto' false and 'de re' true [Plantinga] |
| 14646 | An object has a property essentially if it couldn't conceivably have lacked it [Plantinga] |
| 14647 | Surely self-identity is essential to Socrates? [Plantinga] |
| 14648 | Could I name all of the real numbers in one fell swoop? Call them all 'Charley'? [Plantinga] |
| 14649 | Can we find an appropriate 'de dicto' paraphrase for any 'de re' proposition? [Plantinga] |
| 14650 | Maybe proper names involve essentialism [Plantinga] |
| 14651 | What Socrates could have been, and could have become, are different? [Plantinga] |