Advertisement

Modalities Without Worlds

  • Reinhard KahleEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 23)

Abstract

The standard approach to the modalities necessity and possibility is given by modal logic together with possible worlds semantics. In the view of some philosophers, this semantics requires a realism which a fortiori is presupposed for the understanding of modalities. In this paper we will discuss some philosophical problems of this approach, and propose an alternative view which overcome some of these problems; in particular, it dispense with realism for possible worlds.

Keywords

Modal Logic Axiom System Accessibility Relation Background Theory Epistemic Modality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Jesse Alama, Volker Halbach, Greg Wheeler, Bartosz Więckowski, and John Woods for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Research partially supported by the ESF research project Dialogical Foundations of Semantics within the ESF Eurocores program LogICCC (funded by the Portuguese Science Foundation, FCT LogICCC/0001/2007).

References

  1. 1.
    Artemov, S., and R. Iemhoff. 2007. “The Basic Intuitionistic Logic of Proofs.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 72(2):439–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artemov, S., and E. Nogina. 2005. “Introducing Justification to Epistemic Logic.” Journal of Logic and Computation 15(6):1059–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bull, R., and K. Segerberg. 1984. “Basic Modal Logic.” In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, edited by D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, vol. II, 1–88. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carnap, R. 1947. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chihara, C. S. 1998. The Worlds of Possibility. Oxford: Oxford Unviersity Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Copeland, B. J. 2002. “The Genesis of Possible Worlds Semantics.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 31(2):99–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Divers, J. 2002. Possible Worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Føllesdal, D. 1980. “Eintrag Semantik.” In Handbuch wissenschaftstheoretischer Begriffe, edited by J. Speck, vol. 3 (R–Z), 568–79. Göttingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forster, T. 2005. “The Modal Aether.” In Intensionality, vol. 22 of Lecture Notes in Logic, edited by R. Kahle, 1–19. Wellesley, MA: ASL and AK Peters.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift. Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Louis Nebert.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift, a Formula Language, Modeled Upon That of Arithmetic, for Pure Thought, 1–82. English translation of Begriffsschrift. Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle: Louis Nebert; reprinted in From Frege to Gödel a Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, edited by Jean van Heijenoort. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grice, P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In The Logic of Grammar, edited by D. Davidson and G. Harman, 64–75. Encino, CA: Dickenson.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahle, R. 2002. “Structured Belief Bases.” Logic and Logical Philosophy 10:49–62.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahle, R. 2006. “A Proof-Theoretic View of Necessity.” Synthese 148(3):659–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahle, R. 2008. “Against Possible Worlds.” In Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of Shahid Rahman, vol. 7 of Tributes, edited by C. Degremont, L. Keiff, and H. Rückert, 235–53. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Łukasiewicz, J. 1957. Aristotle’s Syllogistic. From the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1st Edition, 1951).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mares, E. D. 2004. Relevant Logic. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nanevski, A., F. Pfenning, and B. Pientka. 2008. “Contextual Modal Type Theory.” ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9(3):1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfenning F., and R. Davies. 2001. “A Judgmental Reconstruction of Modal Logic.” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 11:511–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Primiero, G. 2009. “Epistemic Modalities.” In Acts of Knowledge—History, Philosophy and Logic, edited by G. Primiero and S. Rahman, 207–32. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Primiero, G. 2010. “Constructive Contextual Modal Judgments for Reasoning from Open Assumptions.” In Programs, Proofs, Processes, edited by F. Ferreira, H. Guerra, E. Mayordomo, and J. Rasga. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Computability in Europe, CiE 2010, 336–45. University of Azores, Centre for Applied Mathematics and Information Technology.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smith, R. 2009. “Aristotle’s Logic.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/aristotle-logic/
  25. 25.
    Stalnaker, R. 1995. “Modalities and Possible Worlds.” In A Companion to Metaphysics, edited by J. Kim and E. Sosa, 333–37. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wehmeier, K. 2004. “In the Mood.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 33:607–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wehmeier, K. 2005. “Modality, Mood, and Descriptions.” In Intensionality, vol. 22 of Lecture Notes in Logic, edited by R. Kahle, 187–216. Wellesley, MA: ASL and AK Peters.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Woods, J. (preprint). “Making Too Much of Possible Worlds.” 201x. Available at the author’s home page: http://www.johnwoods.ca/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CENTRIA and DM, FCT, Universidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations