more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 16438

[filed under theme 10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 2. Necessity as Primitive ]

Full Idea

My view is that if there were a nonmodal analysis of the modal concepts, that would be a sure sign that we were on the wrong track. Necessity and possibility are fundamental concepts, like truth and existence.

Gist of Idea

Necessity and possibility are fundamental, and there can be no reductive analysis of them

Source

Robert C. Stalnaker (Mere Possibilities [2012], 1.1)

Book Ref

Stalnaker,Robert C.: 'Mere Possibilities' [Princeton 2012], p.4


A Reaction

The mystery of modality is tied up with the mystery of time (which is a very big mystery indeed). You get a nice clear grip on the here and now, but time and motion whisk you away to something else. Modality concerns the something else.

Related Idea

Idea 16444 Possible worlds don't reduce modality, they regiment it to reveal its structure [Stalnaker]


The 27 ideas from 'Mere Possibilities'

Given actualism, how can there be possible individuals, other than the actual ones? [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds are properties [Stalnaker]
Some say what exists must do so, and nothing else could possible exist [Stalnaker]
Modal concepts are central to the actual world, and shouldn't need extravagant metaphysics [Stalnaker]
Necessity and possibility are fundamental, and there can be no reductive analysis of them [Stalnaker]
A nominalist view says existence is having spatio-temporal location [Stalnaker]
I don't think Lewis's cost-benefit reflective equilibrium approach offers enough guidance [Stalnaker]
Properties are modal, involving possible situations where they are exemplified [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds don't reduce modality, they regiment it to reveal its structure [Stalnaker]
I think of worlds as cells (rather than points) in logical space [Stalnaker]
I take propositions to be truth conditions [Stalnaker]
A theory of propositions at least needs primitive properties of consistency and of truth [Stalnaker]
Propositions presumably don't exist if the things they refer to don't exist [Stalnaker]
Possible world semantics may not reduce modality, but it can explain it [Stalnaker]
In modal set theory, sets only exist in a possible world if that world contains all of its members [Stalnaker]
Anti-haecceitism says there is no more to an individual than meeting some qualitative conditions [Stalnaker]
Dispositions have modal properties, of which properties things would have counterfactually [Stalnaker]
The bundle theory makes the identity of indiscernibles a necessity, since the thing is the properties [Stalnaker]
Modal properties depend on the choice of a counterpart, which is unconstrained by metaphysics [Stalnaker]
We still lack an agreed semantics for quantifiers in natural language [Stalnaker]
We regiment to get semantic structure, for evaluating arguments, and understanding complexities [Stalnaker]
In 'S was F or some other than S was F', the disjuncts need S, but the whole disjunction doesn't [Stalnaker]
Strong necessity is always true; weak necessity is cannot be false [Stalnaker]
'Socrates is essentially human' seems to say nothing could be Socrates if it was not human [Stalnaker]
Non-S5 can talk of contingent or necessary necessities [Stalnaker]
I accept a hierarchy of properties of properties of properties [Stalnaker]
How can we know what we are thinking, if content depends on something we don't know? [Stalnaker]