Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Logic and Ontological Pluralism

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ontological pluralism is the doctrine that there are different ways or modes of being. In contemporary guise, it is the doctrine that a logically perspicuous description of reality will use multiple quantifiers which cannot be thought of as ranging over a single domain. Although thought defeated for some time, recent defenses have shown a number of arguments against the view unsound. However, another worry looms: that despite looking like an attractive alternative, ontological pluralism is really no different than its counterpart, ontological monism. In this paper, after explaining the worry in detail, I argue that considerations dealing with the nature of the logic ontological pluralists ought to endorse, coupled with an attractive philosophical thesis about the relationship between logic and metaphysics, show this worry to be unfounded.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alanen, L. (1994). Sensory ideas, objective reality, and material falsity. In J. Cottingham (Ed.), Reason, will, and sensation: Studies in Descartes’ metaphysics (pp. 229–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chalmers, D., Manley, D., & Wasserman, R. (Eds.) (2009). Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Descartes, R. (1984). Author’s replies to the first set of objections. In J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch (Eds.), The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. 2, pp. 74–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dorr, C. (2005). What we disagree about when we disagree about ontology. In M. E. Kalderon (Ed.), Fictionalism in metaphysics (pp. 234–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Eklund, M. (2007). The picture of reality as an amorphous lump. In D. Zimmerman, J. Hawthorne, & T. Sider (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 382–396). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Enderton, H. B. (2001). A mathematical introduction to logic (2nd ed.). Harcourt Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Etchemendy, J. (1983). The doctrine of logic as form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(3), 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Field, H. (1991). Metalogic and modality. Philosophical Studies, 62(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(1), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fine, K. (2005). Tense and reality. In Modality and tense (pp. 261–320). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Hailperin, T. (1953). Quantification theory and empty individual-domains. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 19(3), 197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris, J. H. (1982). What’s so logical about the logical axioms? Studia Logica, 41, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hawthorne, J. (2006). Plenitude, convention, and ontology. In Metaphysical essays (pp. 53–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hawthorne, J., & Cortens, A. (1995). Towards ontological nihilism. Philosophical Studies, 79(2), 143–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hirsch, E. (2002). Quantifier variance and realism. Philosophical Issues, Realism and Relativism, 12, 51–73.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hirsch, E. (2007). Ontological arguments: Interpretive charity and quantifier variance. In D. Zimmerman, J. Hawthorne, & T. Sider (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 367–381). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hoffman, P. (1996). Descartes on misrepresentation. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 34(3), 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, J. (1993). Supervenience and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Kreisel, G. (1967). Informal rigor and completeness proofs. In I. Lakatos (Ed.), Problems in the philosophy of mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lambert, K. (2001). Free logics. In L. Goble (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to philosophical logic (pp. 258–279). Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leblanc, H., & Thomasson, R. (1982). Completeness theorems for some presupposition-free logics. In Existence, truth and provability. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377. Reprinted in Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 8–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  23. Lewis, D. (1984). Putnam’s paradox. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 221–236. Reprinted in Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 56–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  24. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Malden: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Ludlow, P. (1999). Semantics, tense, and time. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McDaniel, K. (2009). Ways of being. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McGee, V. (2000). Everything. In G. Sher, & R. Tieszen (Eds.), Between logic and intuition (pp. 54–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. McGee, V. (2006). A rule for everything. In A. Rayo, & G. Uzquiano (Eds.), Absolute generality (pp. 179–202). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mellor, D. H. (1981). Real time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mellor, D. H. (1998). Real time II. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Normore, C. (1986). Meaning and objective being: Descartes and his sources. In A. O. Rorty (Ed.), Essays on Descartes’ meditations (pp. 223–241). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Plantinga, A. (1987). Two concepts of modality: Modal realism and modal reductionism. Philosophical Perspectives, 1, 189–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Prior, A. N. (1968). Papers on time and tense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Prior, A. N. (1977). Worlds, times, and selves. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Putnam, H. (1987). The many faces of realism. La Salle: Open Court Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Putnam, H. (1987). Truth and convention: On Davidson’s refutation of conceptual relativism. Dialectica, 41, 69–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Restall, G. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In P. Hajek, L. Valdes-Villanueva, & D. Westerstahl (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the twelfth international congress (pp. 189–205). London: Kings’ College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sider, T. (2001). Four dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Sider, T. (2003). Reductive theories of modality. In M. J. Loux, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 180–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sider, T. (2009). Ontological realism. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sosa, E. (1993). Putnam’s pragmatic realism. The Journal of Philosophy, 90(12), 605–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Szabó, Z. (2003). Nominalism. In M. J. Loux, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.) (2003). The Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 11–45). Oxford University Press.

  44. Turner, J. (2010). Ontological pluralism. The Journal of Philosophy, 107(1), 5–34.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Turner, J. (Forthcoming). Are ontological debates defective? In R. Garcia (Ed.), Substance. Philosophia Verlag.

  46. Williamson, T. (1988). Equivocation and existence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 88, 109–127.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Williamson, T. (2006). Absolute identity and absolute generality. In A. Rayo, & G. Uzquiano (Eds.), Absolute generality (pp. 369–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, The University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Jason Turner

Authors
  1. Jason Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason Turner.

Additional information

This paper grew out of an extended discussion with Jonathan Schaffer. So: Thanks, Jonathan! Thanks also to Robbie Williams and an anonymous referee for valuable suggestions and guidance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, J. Logic and Ontological Pluralism. J Philos Logic 41, 419–448 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9167-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-010-9167-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation