Combining Texts

Ideas for 'Intro to Naming,Necessity and Natural Kinds', 'Necessary Beings' and 'Reportatio'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 1. Sources of Necessity
It seems that we cannot show that modal facts depend on non-modal facts [Hale]
     Full Idea: I think we may conclude that there is no significant version of modal supervenience which both commands acceptance and implies that all modal facts depend asymmetrically on non-modal ones.
     From: Bob Hale (Necessary Beings [2013], 03.4.3)
     A reaction: This is the conclusion of a sustained and careful discussion, recorded here for interest. I'm inclined to think that there are very few, if any, non-modal facts in the world, if those facts are accurately characterised.
10. Modality / C. Sources of Modality / 6. Necessity from Essence
The big challenge for essentialist views of modality is things having necessary existence [Hale]
     Full Idea: Whether the essentialist theory can account for all absolute necessities depends in part on whether the theory can explain the necessities of existence (of certain objects, properties and entities).
     From: Bob Hale (Necessary Beings [2013], Intro)
     A reaction: Hale has a Fregean commitment to all sorts of abstract objects, and then finds difficulty in explaining them from his essentialist viewpoint. His book didn't convince me. I'm more of a nominalist, me, so I sleep better at nights.
Essentialism doesn't explain necessity reductively; it explains all necessities in terms of a few basic natures [Hale]
     Full Idea: The point of the essentialist theory is not to provide a reductive explanation of necessities. It is, rather, to locate a base class of necessities - those which directly reflect the natures of things - in terms of which the remainder may be explained.
     From: Bob Hale (Necessary Beings [2013], 06.6)
     A reaction: My picture is of most of the necessities being directly explained by the natures of things, rather than a small core of natures generating all the derived ones. All the necessities of squares derive from the nature of the square.
If necessity derives from essences, how do we explain the necessary existence of essences? [Hale]
     Full Idea: If the essentialist theory of necessity is to be adequate, it must be able to explain how the existence of certain objects - such as the natural numbers - can itself be absolutely necessary.
     From: Bob Hale (Necessary Beings [2013], 07.1)
     A reaction: Hale and his neo-logicist pals think that numbers are 'objects', and they necessarily exist, so he obviously has a problem. I don't see any alternative for essentialists to treating the existing (and possible) natures as brute facts.