Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Modal logic: the modal logic is an extension of classical logic to systems in which possibility and necessity can also be expressed. Different approaches use operators to express "necessary" and "possible", which, depending on the placement within formulas, can let claims of different strengths win. E.g. there is an object which necessarily has the property F/it is necessary that there is an object with the property F. The introduction of possible worlds makes quantification possible for expressing possibility (There is at least one world in which ...) and necessity (For all worlds is valid ...). See also operators, quantifier, completion, range, possible worlds.

_____________
Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
II 152
Modal logic/Quine: entire Modal logic is context-dependent - what is the role of someone or something? - Same level as essential properties.
---
VII 151
Modal logic/ontology/Quine: instead of Venus as a material object now three objects: Venus term, morning star term, evening star term - avoiding opaque contexts: class names as objects rather than classes, numerical names as objects instead of numbers - number concept/Number of planets concept: a term is not larger/smaller than another one - reason: necessity is not satisfied by physical objects (> Hume) - Necessity/possibility: is only introduced by way of reference, not by the objects - necessity concerns relations, not objects (not existence) - Frege: "sense (meaning) of names" Quine: Problem: individuation requires analyticity and synonymy - E.g. (s) "The term Morning Star necessarily includes the appearance on the morning sky.
---
VII 151f
Modal logic/Quine: makes essentialism necessary, i.e. you cannot do without necessary traits of the objects themselves, because you cannot do without quantification - QuineVsModal logic: actually there is nothing necessary to the objects "themselves", but only in the way of reference.
---
VII 151
Modal logic/ontology/Quine: the condition that two names for x must be synonymous is not a condition for objects, but for singular terms - no necessity de re - Venus does not decide about morning star/evening star. - ((s) The conditions are equivalent not the objects. > necessity.
---
VII 154
Modal logic/Church/Quine: quantified variables should be limited to intensional values ​​- Proposition: complex names of intensional objects - then instead of necessity operator for whole sentences: Necessity predicate is based on complex names ("propositions") - no modal logic in the narrower sense.
---
VII 154
Modal logic/Smullyan/Quine: strict separation of proper names and (overt or covert) descriptions - names which denote the same objects are always synonymous (if x = y, then nec. x = y.) - In this case, sentences like (number of the planets = 9) which do not have a substitutable identity must be analyzed by descriptions rather than through proper names (Quine pro) - QuineVs: one must still consider opaque contexts, even if descriptions and other singular terms are eliminated all together.
---
VII 154
Modal logic/necessity/planet example/Quine: the only hope is to accept the situation as described in (33): there are exactly x planets) and still insist that the object x in question is necessarily more than 7! (> Essentialism). - An object itself, regardless by what it is named or not named, must be considered in a way that it has some traits necessarily and others by chance! And notwithstanding the fact that the random traits stem from a way of reference, as well as the necessary ones from other modes of reference - ~nec. [p. (x = x)] where "p" stands for any random truth.
---
VII 156
Modal logic/Quine: one must accept an Aristotelian essentialism, if one wants to permit quantified modal logic.
---
VII 156
Modal logic/planet/Quine: the property of being bigger than 9 = the property of being bigger than 9 - but wrong: the property of exceeding the number of planets = the property of being bigger than 9 (s) New: although now the number is the same, the property is not the same - (E.g.) (x = The property of being greater than x = the property to be greater than 9) - any non-truth-functional language leads to opaque contexts.
---
X 107
Modality/modal/Quine: Problem: extension-identical (coextensive) predicates are not interchangeable salva veritate.


_____________
Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.

Q I
W.V.O. Quine
Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980

Q II
W.V.O. Quine
Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985

Q III
W.V.O. Quine
Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978

Q IX
W.V.O. Quine
Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967

Q V
W.V.O. Quine
Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989

Q VI
W.V.O. Quine
Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995

Q VII
W.V.O. Quine
From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953

Q VIII
W.V.O. Quine
Bezeichnung und Referenz
In
Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg), München 1982

Q X
W.V.O. Quine
Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005

Q XII
W.V.O. Quine
Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003


> Counter arguments against Quine
> Counter arguments in relation to Modal Logic



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-08-24