display all the ideas for this combination of texts
6 ideas
4195 | It is impossible to reach a valid false conclusion from true premises, so reason itself depends on possibility [Lowe] |
Full Idea: Reasoning itself depends upon a grasp of possibilities, because a valid argument is one in which it is not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.11) | |
A reaction: A very valuable corrective to my pessimistic view of philosophers' attempts to understand metaphysical necessity. But if we can only grasp natural necessity, then all reason is naturalistic. |
18618 | Maybe possibilities are recombinations of the existing elements of reality [Mumford] |
Full Idea: It has been suggested that we could think of possibilities as recombinations of all the existing elements of reality. | |
From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 8) | |
A reaction: [Armstrong 1989 is the source] The obvious problem would be that the existence of an entirely different reality would be impossible, if this was all possibility could be. It seems to cramp the style of the possible too much. Are properties elements? |
18619 | Combinatorial possibility has to allow all elements to be combinable, which seems unlikely [Mumford] |
Full Idea: The combinatorial account only works if you allow that the elements are recombinable. ...But could Lincoln really have been green? It seems possible that you could jump to the moon, unless we impose some restrictions. | |
From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 8) | |
A reaction: Mumford suggests different combination rules for logical and natural possibility. The general objection is that combinatorial possibility is too permissive - which it clearly is. |
18620 | Combinatorial possibility relies on what actually exists (even over time), but there could be more [Mumford] |
Full Idea: Can combinatorial possibility deliver enough possibilities? It uses the existing elements, but there might have been one more particular or one more property. Even extended over time, the elements seem finite, yet there could have been more. | |
From: Stephen Mumford (Metaphysics: a very short introduction [2012], 8) | |
A reaction: [compressed] One objection is that the theory allows too much, and now the objection is that it allows too little. Both objections are correct, so that's the end of that. But I admire the attempt to base modality on actuality. |
13810 | The source of de dicto necessity is not concepts, but the actual properties of the thing [Forbes,G] |
Full Idea: It is widely held that the source of de dicto necessity is in concepts, ..but I deny this... even with simple de dicto necessities, the source of the necessity is to be found in the properties to which the predicates of the de dicto truth refer. | |
From: Graeme Forbes (In Defense of Absolute Essentialism [1986], 3) | |
A reaction: It is normal nowadays to say this about de re necessities, but this is more unusual. |
4207 | We might eliminate 'possible' and 'necessary' in favour of quantification over possible worlds [Lowe] |
Full Idea: It may be possible to eliminate the modal operators (in English, 'is possible' and 'is necessary') in favour of quantifier expressions with variables ranging over possible worlds. | |
From: E.J. Lowe (A Survey of Metaphysics [2002], p.121) | |
A reaction: Hence 'necessary' becomes 'exists/is true in all possible worlds'. Deep problems, but at least we must show that referring to 'possible' worlds isn't a circular explanation of 'is possible'. |