Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–30 | Cite as

How can we come to know metaphysical modal truths?

  • Amie L. ThomassonEmail author
S.I.: New Directions in the Epistemology of Modality

Abstract

Those who aim to give an account of modal knowledge face two challenges: the integration challenge of reconciling an account of what is involved in knowing modal truths with a plausible story about how we can come to know them, and the reliability challenge of giving a plausible account of how we could have evolved a reliable capacity to acquire modal knowledge. I argue that recent counterfactual and dispositional accounts of modal knowledge cannot solve these problems regarding specifically metaphysical modal truths—leaving us with the threat of skepticism about large portions of metaphysics, and certain other areas of philosophy. I argue, however, that both of these problems look insuperable only if we assume that metaphysical modal discourse serves a describing or tracking function. If we adopt instead a normativist approach to metaphysical modal discourse, which sees the basic function of modal discourse as giving us perspicuous ways of conveying, reasoning with, and renegotiating semantic rules, the problems show up very differently. The modal normativist can give a plausible response to both of the classic problems of how we can come to know metaphysical modal truths.

Keywords

Modal epistemology Modal normativism Reliability challenge Integration challenge Metaphysical modality Debunking arguments 

References

  1. Ayer, A. J. (1936/1952). Language, truth and logic. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  2. Benacerraf, P. (1973). Mathematical truth. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 661–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, K. (2004). Spatiotemporal coincidence and the grounding problem. Philosophical Studies, 118, 339–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berker, S. (2014). Does evolutionary psychology show that normativity is mind-dependent? In J. D’Arms & D. Jacobson (Eds.), Moral psychology and human agency: Philosophical essays on the science of ethics (pp. 215–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickerton, D. (2007). Language evolution: A brief guide for linguists. Lingua, 117(2007), 510–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blackburn, S. (unpublished). Sharon Street on the independent normative truth as such. http://www2.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/PAPERS/Meanstreet.htm.
  8. Boghossian, P. (1997). Analyticity. In B. Hale & C. Wright (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Brandom, R. (2008). Between saying and doing: Towards an analytic pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bueno, O., & Shalkowski, S. (2015). Modalism and theoretical virtues: Toward an epistemology of modality. Philosophical Studies, 172, 671–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, M. (1992). Copper statues and pieces of copper: A challenge to the standard account. Analysis, 52(1), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carnap, R. (1950/1956). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. In Meaning and necessity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke-Doane, J. (2016). What is the Benacerraf problem? In F. Pataut (Ed.), Truth, objects, infinity. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Dreier, J. (2012). Quasi-realism and the problem of unexplained coincidence. Analytic Philosophy, 53(3), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, B. (2017). Modal empiricism: Objection, reply, proposal. In B. Fischer & F. Leon (Ed.).Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, B., & Leon, F. (2017). Modal epistemology after rationalism. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking how to live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grover, D., Camp, J. L. Jr., & Belnap, N. D. Jr. (1975). A prosentential theory of truth. Philosophical Studies, 27, 73–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horwich, P. (2010). Truth-meaning-reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hume, D. (1777/1977). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  21. Jenkins, C. S. (2010). Concepts, experience and modal knowledge. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Leon, F. (2017). From modal skepticism to modal empiricism. In B. Fischer & F. Leon (Eds.).Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Locke, T. (2018). Counterpossibles for modal normativists. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami.Google Scholar
  26. Malgren, A.-S. (2011). Rationalism and the content of intuitive judgements. Mind, 120(478), 263–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nolan, D. (2014). Hyperintensional metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 171, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nozick, R. (2001). Invariances: The structure of the objective world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Peacocke, C. (1999). Being known. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Plunkett, D., & Sundell, T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosopher’s Imprint, 13(23), 1–37.Google Scholar
  32. Price, H. (2011). Naturalism without mirrors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Restall, G. (2012). A cut-free sequent system for two-dimensional modal logic, and why it matters. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 163(11), 1611–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roca-Royes, S. (2017). Similarity and possibility: An epistemology of de re possibility for concrete entities. In Fischer & Leon (2017).Google Scholar
  35. Rosa, E. (1998). A close look at therapeutic touch. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279(13), 1005–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  37. Schechter, J. (2018). Explanatory challenges in metaethics. In D. Plunkett, & T. McPherson (Eds.), The Routledege handbook of metaethics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Schlick, M. (1918). Allgemeine erkenntnislehre. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Sellars, W. (1958). Counterfactuals, dispositions and the causal modalities. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in philosophy of science volume 2: Concepts, theories and the mind-body problem (pp. 225–308). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sidelle, A. (1989). Necessity, essence and individuation: A defense of conventionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Skyrms, B. (1976). Possible worlds, physics and metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 30, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127, 109–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Street, S. (2011). Mind-independence without the mystery: Why quasi-realists can’t have it both ways. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 6, 1–32.Google Scholar
  45. Thomasson, A. L. (2007a). Ordinary objects. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomasson, A. L. (2007b). Modal normativism and the methods of metaphysics. Philosophical Topics, 35(1, 2), 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomasson, A. L. (2009). Non-descriptivism about modality: A brief history and revival. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication., 4, 1–26.Google Scholar
  48. Thomasson, A. L. (2013). Norms and necessity. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 51, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomasson, A. L. (2015). Ontology made easy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thomasson, A. L. (2016). Metaphysical disputes and metalinguistic negotiation. Analytic Philosophy, 58, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomasson, A. L. (in progress). Norms and necessity. Google Scholar
  52. Vaidya, A. (2017). Modal epistemology. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Google Scholar
  53. Van Inwagen, P. (1998). Modal epistemology. Philosophical Studies, 92, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vavova, K. (2015). Evolutionary debunking of moral realism. Philosophy Compass, 10(2), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vetter, B. (2015). Potentiality: From dispositions to modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wittgenstein, L. (1922/1933). Tractatus logico-philosophicus (trans: Ogden, C. K.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Wright, C. (1980). Wittgenstein on the foundations of mathematics. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations