Acta Analytica

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 161–176 | Cite as

A Critique of Armstrong’s Truthmaking Account of Possibility



In this paper I argue against Armstrong’s recent truthmaking account of possibility. I show that the truthmaking account presupposes modality in a number of different ways, and consequently that it is incapable of underwriting a genuine reduction of modality. I also argue that Armstrong’s account faces serious difficulties irrespective of the question of reduction; in particular, I argue that his Entailment and Possibility Principles are both false.


Armstrong Truthmakers Possibility Reduction Instantiation Combinatorialism 


  1. Armstrong, D. (1978). Universals and scientific realism: A theory of universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. (1989a). A combinatorial theory of possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, D. (1989b). Universals: An opinionated introduction. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, D. (2004). Truth and truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Armstrong, D. (2005). Reply to Simons and Mumford. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baxter, D. (2001). Instantiation as partial identity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 79, 449–464.Google Scholar
  8. David, M. (2002). Armstrong on truthmaking. In H. Bebee, & J. Dodd (Eds.), Truthmakers: The contemporary debate (pp. 141–159). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. In J. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives, 8, Logic and language (pp. 1–16). Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Mumford, S. (2005). The true and the false. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mumford, S. (2007). David Armstrong. UK: Acumen.Google Scholar
  13. Read, S. (2000). Truthmaking and the disjunction thesis. Mind, 109, 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. (2006). Truthmaking, entailment, and the conjunction thesis. Mind, 115, 957–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simons, P. (2005). Negatives, numbers, and necessity: Some worries about Armstrong’s version of truthmaking. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations