Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:31:44.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unnecessary existents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Joshua Spencer
Joshua Spencer*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI53201
*
*Email: spence48@uwm.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Timothy Williamson has argued for the radical conclusion that everything necessarily exists. In this paper, I assume that the conclusion of Williamson's argument is more incredible than the denial of his premises. Under the assumption that Williamson is mistaken, I argue for the claim that there are some structured propositions which have constituents that might not have existed. If those constituents had not existed, then the propositions would have had an unfilled role; they would have been gappy. This gappy propositions view allows for a plausible response to Williamson's argument. Additionally, a slight variant of the gappy propositions view allows for plausible defense of Linguistic Ersatzism from the problem of contingent non-existents (also known as the problem of aliens).

Keywords

existencenon-existencepropositionsWilliamsonaliens
Type
Modal Metaphysics
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 766 - 775
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1981. “Actualism and Thisness.” Synthese 49: 3–41.Google Scholar
Braun, David. 1993. “Empty Names.” Noûs 27: 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efird, David. 2009. “Is Timothy Williamson a Necessary Existent?” In Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology, edited by Hale, Bob, and Hoffman, Aviv. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1985. “Plantinga on the Reduction of Possibilist Discourse.” In Alvin Plantinga, edited by Tomberlin, J., and van Inwagen, P., 145–186. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, Allen. 1996. “Actualism Again.” Philosophical Studies 84: 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, Mark. 1998. “Property Counterparts in ErsatzWorlds.” Journal of Philosophy 95: 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. “Demonstratives.” In Themes from Kaplan, edited by Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 2013. Reference and Existence: The John Locke Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward N.. 1994. “In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic.” In Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language, edited by Tomberlin, J., 431–458. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward N.. 1996. “In Defense of the Contingently Concrete.” Philosophical Studies 84: 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markosian, Ned. 2004. “A Defense of Presentism.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 1, 47–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McMichael, Alan. 1983. “A Problem for Actualism about PossibleWorlds.” Philosophical Review 92: 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Daniel. 2002. Topics in the Philosophy of Possible Worlds. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1983. “On Existentialism.” Philosophical Studies 44: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. N., and Fine, Kit. 1977. Worlds, Times and Selves. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Rumfitt, Ian. 2003. “Contingent Existents.” Philosophy 78: 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1998. “Nonexistence.” Noûs 32: 277–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2002. “The Ersatze Pluriverse.” Journal of Philosophy 99: 279–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1990. “Necessary Identity and Necessary Existence.” In Wittgenstein—Towards a Re-evaluation: Proceedings of the 14th International Wittgenstein Symposium, vol. I, edited by Haller, R., and Brandl, J.. Vienna: Holder - Pichler - Tempsky.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 1998. “Bare Possibilia.” Erkenntnis 48: 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2000. “Existence and Contingency.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100: 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2002. “Necessary Existents.” In Logic, Thought, and Language, edited by O’Hear, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2013. Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar