Quine, Structure, and Ontology

Contemporary work on ontology, logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, and philosophy of language still owes much to W.V. Quine. Nevertheless his views are now often dismissed because of mistaken or overly simplified conceptions of his philosophy. The development of his views over time are often overlooked, and in particular the growing importance of a kind of structuralism to his system as it evolved. This volume provides a fuller, richer picture of Quine’s views and their development. It is the first to investigate Quine’s views on structure and how it permeates and shapes his attitude to a range of philosophical questions. It includes contributions by world-famous philosophers and experts in a range of subfields including philosophical logic, philosophy of language, history of philosophy, mathematics, philosophy of time, and set theory. Chapters by Michael Resnik, Frederique Janssen-Lauret and Fraser MacBride, John Collins, Jaroslav Peregrin, and Paul Gregory explore whether Quine’s structuralism is epistemological, language-based, or ontological. Greg Frost-Arnold, Robert Sinclair, and Gary Kemp and Andrew Lugg explore Quine’s views on structure from a historical point of view. Nathan Salmón, Gila Sher, Marianna Antonutti Marfori, and Natalja Deng consider Quine’s views on the structure of logic, language, and theories in relation to contemporary philosophy, specifically ontology, the philosophy of logic and mathematics, philosophy of set theory, and philosophy of time.

Introduction

This introduction discusses the development of Quine’s system over time and the centrality of structure to it. It explains the contributions made in this volume to our understanding of Quine’s thought on structure and ontology, especially with respect to philosophical logic, philosophy of language, history of philosophy, mathematics, philosophy of time, and set theory. Chapters by Michael Resnik, Frederique Janssen-Lauret and Fraser MacBride, John Collins, Jaroslav Peregrin, and Paul Gregory explore whether Quine’s structuralism is epistemological, language-based, or ontological. Greg Frost-Arnold, Robert Sinclair, and Gary Kemp and Andrew Lugg explore Quine’s views on structure from a historical point of view. Nathan Salmón, Gila Sher, Marianna Antonutti Marfori, and Natalja Deng consider Quine’s views on the structure of logic, language, and theories in relation to contemporary philosophy, specifically ontology, the philosophy of logic and mathematics, philosophy of set theory, and philosophy of time.

S5 as the Logic of Metaphysical Modality: Two Arguments for and Two Arguments against

Two arguments for S5 being the logic of metaphysical modality are favourably discussed: one from the logic of absolute necessity, one from Timothy Williamson. Two arguments against S5 being the logic of metaphysical modality are discussed and rebuffed: one from Nathan Salmon against S4, and thereby S5, being the logical of metaphysical modality; and one from Michael Dummett against the B principle for metaphysical modality. In the Appendix, some comments are offered on the logics of ‘true in virtue of the nature of’, and its relation to logical necessity. It is argued that the logic both of ‘true in virtue of the nature of x’ and of essentialist logical necessity is S5.

The Predicate of Existence

Kant famously declared that existence is not a (real) predicate. This famous dictum has been seen as echoed in the doctrine of the founders of modern logic, Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that existence isn’t a first-order property possessed by individuals, but rather a second-order property expressed by the existential quantifier. Russell in 1905 combined this doctrine with his new theory of descriptions and declared the paradox of nonexistence to be resolved without resorting to his earlier distinction between existence and being. In recent years, however, logicians and philosophers like Saul Kripke, David Kaplan, and Nathan Salmon have argued that there is no defensible reason to deny that existence is a property of individuals. Kant’s dictum has also been re-evaluated, the result being that the paradox of nonexistence has not, after all, disappeared. Yet it’s not clear how exactly Kripke et al. propose to resolve the paradox.

Fellow Travelers

A synoptic account of the ontology of death developed in the book is offered, according to which the dead (and the unborn) are seen to be nonexistent objects that possess being but lack existence, and that retain their essential natures as living beings that are now no longer actually alive. This approach has points of contact with the approaches offered by several other philosophers, only one of whom, however, is engaged in the philosophy of death, which helps to confirm the thesis that philosophers of death have failed to take into account the insights achieved in other branches of philosophy. The approach taken by each of these “fellow travelers”—Niall Connolly, Timothy Williamson, Nathan Salmon, Kit Fine, David Kaplan, Derek Parfit—is considered, in turn, and the places where there is agreement, and also disagreement, with the views advanced in this study are delineated.

Necesidad de origen y metafísica modal

<p class='p1'>Kripke ha propuesto que el origen de una entidad debe ser concebido como esencial a él. El argumento de Kripke requiere una premisa crucial que establezca que cierto material en conjunto con una serie de condiciones no triviales deben ser suficientes para la realidad del objeto en cuestión. Sin embargo, los esfuerzos ulteriores de filósofos como Nathan Salmon o Graeme Forbes por hacer este requerimiento preciso y, al mismo tiempo, independientemente verosímil han fracasado. En este trabajo se explicará por qué esta línea de argumentación debe fracasar. El problema de la necesidad de origen requiere ser tratado de un modo sistemático diferente. Se argumenta que no existe un punto medio entre la necesidad de todas las condiciones de origen de un objeto y la contingencia de todas esas condiciones. En especial, la idea de que las condiciones de origen pueden ser necesarias sólo en su mayor parte, esto es, la posibilidad de admitir pequeñas variaciones en las condiciones de origen, es incoherente con una concepción sensata del dominio ontológico de lo modal.</p>

Three Problems for Richard's Theory of Belief Ascription

Some contemporary Russellians, defenders of the view that the semantic content of a proper name, demonstrative, or indexical is simply its referent, are prepared to accept that view's most infamous apparent consequence: that coreferential names, demonstratives, indexicals, etc. are intersubstitutable salva veritate, even in intentional contexts. Nathan Salmon and Scott Soames argue that our recalcitrant intuitions with respect to the famous apparent counterexamples are not semantic intuitions, but rather pragmatic intuitions. Strictly and literally speaking, Lois Lane believes, and even knows that Clark Kent is identical to Superman, since she believes and knows that Superman is identical to Superman. Salmon and Soames attempt to soften our reaction to this shocker by allowing that it is typically misleading to utter the sentence ‘Lois Lane knows that Clark Kent is identical to Superman,’ since it pragmatically implicates, without semantically entailing, that Lois Lane would accept the sentence ‘Clark Kent is identical to Superman.’ Our compulsive tendency to claim that ‘Lois Lane knows that Clark Kent is Superman’ is false, rather than merely misleading, is due to a confusion between semantics and pragmatics, between truth conditions and conditions of appropriateness of utterance.