more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 18858

[filed under theme 10. Modality / A. Necessity / 5. Metaphysical Necessity ]

Full Idea

It may be metaphysically necessary in one sense that sets or universals or mereological aggregates exist, while in another sense existence is always a contingent matter.

Gist of Idea

Sets, universals and aggregates may be metaphysically necessary in one sense, but not another

Source

Gideon Rosen (The Limits of Contingency [2006], 10)

Book Ref

'Identity and Modality', ed/tr. MacBride,Fraser [OUP 2006], p.38


A Reaction

This idea depends on Idea 18856 and 18857. Personally I only think mereological aggregates and sets exist when people decide that they exist, so I don't see how they could ever be necessary. I'm unconvinced about his two concepts.

Related Ideas

Idea 18856 Non-Standard Metaphysical Necessity: when ¬P is incompatible with the nature of things [Rosen]

Idea 18857 Standard Metaphysical Necessity: P holds wherever the actual form of the world holds [Rosen]


The 29 ideas from Gideon Rosen

Nowadays abstractions are defined as non-spatial, causally inert things [Rosen]
Chess may be abstract, but it has existed in specific space and time [Rosen]
Sets are said to be abstract and non-spatial, but a set of books can be on a shelf [Rosen]
Functional terms can pick out abstractions by asserting an equivalence relation [Rosen]
Abstraction by equivalence relationships might prove that a train is an abstract entity [Rosen]
The Way of Abstraction used to say an abstraction is an idea that was formed by abstracting [Rosen]
Conflating abstractions with either sets or universals is a big claim, needing a big defence [Rosen]
How we refer to abstractions is much less clear than how we refer to other things [Rosen]
Metaphysical necessity is absolute and universal; metaphysical possibility is very tolerant [Rosen]
'Metaphysical' modality is the one that makes the necessity or contingency of laws of nature interesting [Rosen]
Something may be necessary because of logic, but is that therefore a special sort of necessity? [Rosen]
A Meinongian principle might say that there is an object for any modest class of properties [Rosen]
Pairing (with Extensionality) guarantees an infinity of sets, just from a single element [Rosen]
A proposition is 'correctly' conceivable if an ominiscient being could conceive it [Rosen]
The MRL view says laws are the theorems of the simplest and strongest account of the world [Rosen]
Combinatorial theories of possibility assume the principles of combination don't change across worlds [Rosen]
Standard Metaphysical Necessity: P holds wherever the actual form of the world holds [Rosen]
Non-Standard Metaphysical Necessity: when ¬P is incompatible with the nature of things [Rosen]
Sets, universals and aggregates may be metaphysically necessary in one sense, but not another [Rosen]
Philosophers are often too fussy about words, dismissing perfectly useful ordinary terms [Rosen]
An 'intrinsic' property is one that depends on a thing and its parts, and not on its relations [Rosen]
The excellent notion of metaphysical 'necessity' cannot be defined [Rosen]
Facts are structures of worldly items, rather like sentences, individuated by their ingredients [Rosen]
Explanations fail to be monotonic [Rosen]
Things could be true 'in virtue of' others as relations between truths, or between truths and items [Rosen]
Figuring in the definition of a thing doesn't make it a part of that thing [Rosen]
An acid is just a proton donor [Rosen]
'Bachelor' consists in or reduces to 'unmarried' male, but not the other way around [Rosen]
Are necessary truths rooted in essences, or also in basic grounding laws? [Rosen]