Soames’s Deflationism About Modality
One type of deflationism about metaphysical modality suggests that it can be analysed strictly in terms of linguistic or conceptual content and that there is nothing particularly metaphysical about modality. Scott Soames is explicitly opposed to this trend. However, a detailed study of Soames’s own account of modality reveals that it has striking similarities with the deflationary account. In this paper I will compare Soames’s account of a posteriori necessities concerning natural kinds with the deflationary one, specifically Alan Sidelle’s account, and suggest that Soames’s account is vulnerable to the deflationist’s critique. Furthermore, I conjecture that both the deflationary account and Soames’s account fail to fully explicate the metaphysical content of a posteriori necessities. Although I will focus on Soames, my argument may have more general implications towards the prospects of providing a meaning-based account of metaphysical modality.
KeywordsNatural Kind Natural Kind Term Metaphysical Possibility Metaphysical Necessity Linguistic Convention
I am grateful to the anonymous referees for the journal for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
- Ballarin, R. (2011). The necessity of origin: A long and winding route. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-011-9354-3.
- Barnes, G. P. (2000). Modal inquiry: An epistemological study. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Accession Order No. AAT 9972796).Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. (2006a). Foundations of two-dimensional semantics. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics: Foundations and applications (pp. 55–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. (2006b). Scott Soames’ two-dimensionalism. For a session at the meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Central Division, in April 2006. http://consc.net/papers/soames2d.pdf.
- Dumsday, T. (2012). Using natural-kind essentialism to defend dispositionalism. Erkenntnis. doi: 10.1007/s10670-012-9361-z.
- Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. In J. E. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives (Vol. 8, pp. 1–16). Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
- Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Putnam, H. (1990). Is water necessarily H2O? In J. Conant (Ed.), Realism with a human face (pp. 54–79). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Salmon, N. U. (2005). Reference and essence, (2nd ed., 1st ed. published 1982) New York: Prometheus Books, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Sidelle, A. (1989). Necessity, essence and individuation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- Sidelle, A. (2002). On the metaphysical contingency of laws of nature. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 309–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Soames, S. (2005). Reference and description: The case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Soames, S. (2006a). The philosophical significance of the Kripkean necessary aposteriori. Philosophical Issues 16: Philosophy of Language, 288–309.Google Scholar
- Soames, S. (2006b). Reply to critics of Reference and description. For a session at the meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Central Division, in April 2006. http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~soames/replies/Rep_Chicago.pdf.
- Soames, S. (2007b). What are natural kinds? Philosophical Topics, 35 (1-2), 329–342. Page numbers refer to the version available on Soames’s website, http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~soames/forthcoming_papers/Natural_Kinds.pdf.
- Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–32. Reprinted in Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- Tahko, T. E. (2012). Natural kind essentialism revisited. Available from www.ttahko.net/nke.pdf.