Advertisement

Natural Necessity and the Logic of Sortals

  • Max A. Freund
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 408)

Abstract

Two intensional logics for sortal concepts are characterized in this chapter. One is a modal-temporal bidimensional logic, with a constant domain interpretation of the second-order quantificatiers. The other is also a bidimensional logic but with a varying domain interpretation of second-order quantification. Both logics shared the same formal language and differ in their formal semantics. Soundness and completeness theorems are proved for their formal systems with respect to their corresponding semantics. Natural necessity is the modal notion represented in the logics in question. Its content and connection to conceptualism is presented.

Keywords

Sortal concept Natural necessity Temporal-modal logic Constant domain quantification Varying domain quantification 

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Universals and scientific realism (Vol. 1 and 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bliss, R., & Trodgon, K. (2014). Metaphysical grounding. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives//win2016/entries/grounding/
  3. Carroll, J. (2016). Laws of nature. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives//fall2016/entries/laws-of-nature/.
  4. Churchland, P. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind/brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cocchiarella, N. (2007). Formal ontology and conceptual realism. In L. Nowak (Ed.), Synthese library (Vol. 339). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Cocchiarella, N., & Freund, M. (2008). Modal logic: An introduction to its syntax and semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dretske, F. (1977). Laws of nature. Philosophy of Science, 44, 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hochberg, H. (1981). Natural necessity and laws of nature. Philosophy of Science, 48, 386–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McLaughlin, B., & Bennet, K. (2018). Supervenience. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives//win2018/entries/supervenience/
  12. Putnam, H. (1971). Philosophy of logic. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Rescher, N. (1975). A theory of possibility: A constructivistic and conceptualistic account of possible individuals and possible worlds. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  14. Smart, J. J. C. (2007). The mind/brain identity theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives//spr2017/entries/mind-identity/
  15. Tahko, T., & Lowe, E. (2015). Ontological dependence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives//win2016/entries/dependence-ontological/
  16. Tooley, M. (1978). The nature of laws. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, VII(4), 667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wolgar, S. (1988). Science, the very idea. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max A. Freund
    • 1
  1. 1.Professor of Logic and Philosophy, Graduate Program in PhilosophyUniversity of Costa RicaSan JoséCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations