Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 176, Issue 3, pp 693–707 | Cite as

Wierenga on theism and counterpossibles

  • Fabio LampertEmail author
Article
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

Several theists, including Linda Zagzebski, have claimed that theism is somehow committed to nonvacuism about counterpossibles. Even though Zagzebski herself has rejected vacuism, she has offered an argument in favour of it, which Edward Wierenga has defended as providing strong support for vacuism that is independent of the orthodox semantics for counterfactuals, mainly developed by David Lewis and Robert Stalnaker. In this paper I show that argument to be sound only relative to the orthodox semantics, which entails vacuism, and give an example of a semantics for counterfactuals countenancing impossible worlds for which it fails.

Keywords

Counterpossibles Counterfactuals Theism Possible worlds Impossible worlds David Lewis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank an anonymous referee for comments and encouragement.

References

  1. Berto, F., French, R., Priest, G., & Ripley, D. (2017). Williamson on counterpossibles. Journal of Philosophical Logic,.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9446-x.Google Scholar
  2. Brogaard, B., & Salerno, J. (2013). Remarks on counterpossibles. Synthese, 190, 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dowty, D. R., Wall, R. E., & Peters, S. (1981). Introduction to montague semantics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freddoso, A. J. (1986). Human nature, potency, and the incarnation. Faith and Philosophy, 3, 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kment, B. (2006a). Counterfactuals and explanation. Mind, 115, 261–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kment, B. (2006b). Counterfactuals and the analysis of necessity. Philosophical Perspectives, 20, 237–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kratzer, A. (1979). Conditional necessity and possibility. In R. Bauerle, U. Egli, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Semantics from different points of view (Vol. 117–147). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1986a). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (Ed.) (1986b). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 83–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mares, E. (1997). Who’s afraid of impossible worlds? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 516–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mares, E., & Fuhrmann, A. (1995). A relevant theory of conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 645–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morris, T. V. (1987). Perfection and power. In T. V. Morris (Ed.), Anselmian explorations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nolan, D. (1997). Impossible worlds: A modest approach. Notre Dame Journal or Formal Logic, 38, 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nolan, D. (2016). Conditionals and curry. Philosophical Studies, 173, 2629–2647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pearce, K., & Pruss, A. (2012). Understanding omnipotence. Religious studies, 48, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollock, J. (1984). The foundations of philosophical semantics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Read, S. (1995). Thinking about logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Routley, R. (1989). Philosophical and linguistic inroads: Multiply intensional relevant logics. In J. Norman & R. Sylvan (Eds.), Directions in relevant logic (pp. 269–304). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Studies in logical theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Vander Laan, D. (2004). Counterpossibles and similarity. In F. Jackson & G. Priest (Eds.), Lewisian themes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wierenga, E. R. (1999). Theism and counterpossibles. Philosophical studies, 89, 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Williamson, T. (2017). Counterpossibles in metaphysics. In B. Armour-Garb & F. Kroon (Eds.), Philosophical fictionalism. Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  27. Zagzebski, L. T. (1990). What if the impossible had been actual? In M. Beatty (Ed.), Christian theism and the problems of philosophy. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations