Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Necessity, philosophy: different kinds of necessity are distinguished, differing in their strength. For example, physical, logical or metaphysical necessity. See also necessity de dicto, necessity de re._____________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 | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
D.M. Armstrong on Necessity - Dictionary of Arguments
III 77 Logical Necessity/Armstrong: ist the strongest form - physical necessity: is weaker, because it is contingent! - Even weaker: universal quantification (is a mere regularity.) - Important Argument: it is impossible to infer from a law to universal quantification. - Law: physical necessity. III 96 Necessity/Universals/Armstrong: now we can clarify the concept of necessity between universals. - We translate "N(F,G)" (the assertion of a state, which is at the same time a relationship) as follows: the F-ness of something makes the G-ness of the same thing necessary by virtue of the universals F and G. That is not simply: universal quantification: for all x, x". F-ness makes it necessary that x is G - that would regularity theory. >Regularity Theory. Necessity/Armstrong: exists rather between types than between tokens: the F-ness of something, not a"s F-ness. III 163 Necessity/Possible Worlds/Armstrong: possible worlds do not need "possibilia" themselves. - Necessity: does not have to be equal in all possible worlds! In some possible worlds the necessity might not apply. A law of nature can have different status in different possible worlds. Notation: "square" N": necessity in all possible worlds - (strong necessity) III 166 Weak necessity: not all possible worlds - Notation:"necessary (square) ("Socrates exists > Socrates is human)" (operator before the entire conditional. (>Range/Scope). III 164 ArmstrongVsStrong N: requires U to be necessary - but Universals are contingent - III 165 VsStrong Necessity in possible worlds where there are no Fs and Gs it is obliged to uninstantiated universals. - - - Place II 59 Necessity/Place: (conceptualist): only de dicto! - Only type of de re: causal necessity: but contrast here is not contingency, but independence - whether causal need is present, is observed a posteriori (therefore contingent) - contingent: i.e. the dependence was causal or it was not. Place II 59 Necessity/de dicto: (a priori): can something be denied without contradiction? (Linguistic question) - according to this criterion: token identity: typically contingent - type identity: typically necessary - Conceptualism/Place: contingent hypotheses of type-identity become a necessary truth, when the conventional criteria of attribution of universals change. - - - II (c) 95 Necessity/Armstrong: stems only from identity! - Logical possibility: is not possible between separate entities (E.g. cause/effect) - (This is controversial). - - - Martin II 135 Necessity/Contingency/Quine/Martin: puts both on the same level (like many precursors). Quine, early: seemed to tip towards the side of contingency, Quine, late: according to the necessity: Figures for physics, or principle of identity of empirically isomorphic theories._____________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. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Armstrong I David M. Armstrong Meaning and Communication, The Philosophical Review 80, 1971, pp. 427-447 In Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1979 Armstrong II (a) David M. Armstrong Dispositions as Categorical States In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Armstrong II (b) David M. Armstrong Place’ s and Armstrong’ s Views Compared and Contrasted In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Armstrong II (c) David M. Armstrong Reply to Martin In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Armstrong II (d) David M. Armstrong Second Reply to Martin London New York 1996 Armstrong III D. Armstrong What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983 Place I U. T. Place Dispositions as Intentional States In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Place II U. T. Place A Conceptualist Ontology In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Place III U. T. Place Structural Properties: Categorical, Dispositional, or both? In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Place IV U. T. Place Conceptualism and the Ontological Independence of Cause and Effect In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Place V U. T. Place Identifying the Mind: Selected Papers of U. T. Place Oxford 2004 Martin I C. B. Martin Properties and Dispositions In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Martin II C. B. Martin Replies to Armstrong and Place In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Martin III C. B. Martin Final Replies to Place and Armstrong In Dispositions, Tim Crane, London New York 1996 Martin IV C. B. Martin The Mind in Nature Oxford 2010 |
||
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-19