ABSTRACT Analytic philosophy in the mid-twentieth century underwent a major change of direction when a prior consensus in favour of extensionalism and descriptivism made way for approaches using direct reference, the necessity of identity, and modal logic. All three were first defended, in the analytic tradition, by one woman, Ruth Barcan Marcus. But analytic philosophers now tend to credit them to Kripke, or Kripke and Carnap. I argue that seeing Barcan Marcus in her historical context – one dominated by extensionalism and descriptivism – allows us to see how revolutionary she was, in her work and influence on others. I focus on her debate with Quine, who found himself retreating to softened, and more viable, versions of his anti-modal arguments as a result. I make the case that Barcan's formal logic was philosophically well-motivated, connected to her views on reference, and well-matched to her overall views on ontology. Her nominalism led her to reject posits which could not be directly observed and named, such as possibilia. She conceived of modal calculi as facilitating counterfactual discourse about actual existents. I conclude that her contributions ought to be recognized as the first of their kind. Barcan Marcus must be awarded a central place in the canon of analytic philosophy.
Abstract Inspired by the third chapter of Anselm's Proslogion , twentieth century philosophers including Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantinga developed “modal” ontological arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments use modal logic to infer God's existence from the premises that (i) God's existence is possible and (ii) if God exists, He exists necessarily. Like other ontological arguments, modal arguments have won few converts to theism; many commentators consider them question‐begging or liable to parody. This article details how recent attempts to defend these arguments have tried to overcome these difficulties by drawing on modern accounts of the epistemology and metaphysics of modality.
In 'Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic', David Lewis remarks that his counterpart relation 'is very like' the relation of intersubjective correspondence in Rudolf Carnap's 'Der logische Aufbau der Welt'. Given Lewis's status as the most eminent contemporary metaphysician, and Carnap's as the most eminent twentieth century critic of metaphysics, this reference may not only be surprising, but it is also suggestively opaque. In which respect could the two relations from two wildly distinct philosophical frameworks resemble each other? The main aim of this paper is to argue that Lewis's claim indeed points to a significant similarity: both relations act as replacements for identity in their respective frameworks. This main argument is supplemented by a discussion of three further similarities between aspects of Lewis's methodology and Carnap's methodology of the Aufbau. The paper hence supports recent efforts to show that Carnap's book was not the philosophical misstep it was taken to be by Quine and Goodman, but that it rather should be seen as an important step in the development of analytic philosophy.
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.