more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
In accordance with the Barcan Formula we assume that if it is possible that Wittgenstein should have had a child, then something or other is possibly Wittgentein's child.
Clarification
Wittgenstein had no children
Gist of Idea
BF implies that if W possibly had a child, then something is possibly W's child
Source
Ori Simchen (The Barcan Formula and Metaphysics [2013], §5)
Book Ref
-: 'Theoria' [-], p.20
A Reaction
Put like this it sounds unpersuasive. What is the something or other? Someone else's child? A dustbin? A bare particular? Wittgenstein's child? If it was the last one, how could it be Wittgenstein's child while only possibly being that thing?
| 16186 | The Barcan Formulas express how to combine modal operators with classical quantifiers [Simchen] |
| 16187 | The Barcan Formulas are orthodox, but clash with the attractive Actualist view [Simchen] |
| 16188 | Serious Actualism says there are no facts at all about something which doesn't exist [Simchen] |
| 16190 | BF implies that if W possibly had a child, then something is possibly W's child [Simchen] |