Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:46:27.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STRONGLY MILLIAN SECOND-ORDER MODAL LOGICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2017

BRUNO JACINTO
BRUNO JACINTO*
Affiliation:
Centre of Philosophy of the University of Lisbon
*
*CENTRE OF PHILOSOPHY FACULTY OF LETTERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LISBON ALAMEDA DA UNIVERSIDADE, 1600-214 LISBON, PORTUGAL E-mail: jacinto.bruno@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The most common first- and second-order modal logics either have as theorems every instance of the Barcan and Converse Barcan formulae and of their second-order analogues, or else fail to capture the actual truth of every theorem of classical first- and second-order logic. In this paper we characterise and motivate sound and complete first- and second-order modal logics that successfully capture the actual truth of every theorem of classical first- and second-order logic and yet do not possess controversial instances of the Barcan and Converse Barcan formulae as theorems, nor of their second-order analogues. What makes possible these results is an understanding of the individual constants and predicates of the target languages as strongly Millian expressions, where a strongly Millian expression is one that has an actually existing entity as its semantic value. For this reason these logics are called ‘strongly Millian’. It is shown that the strength of the strongly Millian second-order modal logics here characterised afford the means to resist an argument by Timothy Williamson for the truth of the claim that necessarily, every property necessarily exists.

Keywords

03B45necessitismsecond-order modal logicmodalitycomprehension principlesactuality
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 397 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2017 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R. M. (1981). Actualism and thisness. Synthese, 49(1), 3–41.Google Scholar
Barcan, R. (1946). A functional calculus of first order based on strict implication. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11, 1–16.Google Scholar
Correia, F. (2007). Modality, quantification and many vlach-operators. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 36, 473–88.Google Scholar
Crossley, J. N. & Humberstone, L. (1977). The logic of “actually”. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 8, 11–29.Google Scholar
Davies, M. & Humberstone, L. (1980). Two notions of necessity. Philosophical Studies, 38(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
Deutsch, H. (1990). Contingency and modal logic. Philosophical Studies, 60(1/2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Deutsch, H. (1994). Logic for contingent beings. Journal of Philosophical Research, XIX, 273–329.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1980). First-order modal theories. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 39(2), 159–202.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1985). Plantinga on the reduction of possibilist discourse. In Tomberlin, J. E. and van Inwagen, P., editors. Alvin Plantinga. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 145–186.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2016). Williamson on Fine on Prior on the reduction of possibilist discourse. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46(4/5), 548–570.Google Scholar
Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hodes, H. T. (1984a). Axioms for actuality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
Hodes, H. T. (1984b). On modal logics which enrich first-order S5. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13(4), 423–454.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. E. & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A New Introduction to Modal Logic. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Afterthoughts. In Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., editors. Themes from Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 565–612.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Linsky, B. & Zalta, E. N. (1994). In defense of the simplest quantified modal logic. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 431–458.Google Scholar
Menzel, C. (1991). The true modal logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20(4), 331–374.Google Scholar
Prior, A. (1957). Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1919). The philosophy of logical atomism. The Monist, 29(2), 190–222.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. (1987). Existence. Philosophical Perspectives 1, Metaphysics, 49–108.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. (1989). The logic of what might have been. Philosophical Review, 98, 3–34.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. (1998). Logical consequence: Models and modality. In Schirn, M., editor. The Philosophy of Mathematics Today. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 131–156.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1976). Possible worlds. Noûs, 10, 65–75.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1994). The interaction of modality with quantification and identity. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Raffman, D., and Asher, N., editors. Modality, Morality and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 12–28.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2006). Responses. In Thompson, J. and Byrne, A., editors. Content and Modality: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert Stalnaker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 251–295.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2012). Mere Possibilities: Metaphysical Foundations of Modal Semantics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2016). Models and reality. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46(4/5), 709–726.Google Scholar
Stephanou, Y. (2005). First-order modal logic with an ‘actually’ operator. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 46(4), 381–405.Google Scholar
Vlach, F. (1973). “Now” and “Then”: A Formal Study in the Logic of Tense Anaphora. Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (1996). The necessity and determinacy of distinctness. In Lovibond, S. and Williams, S., editors. Essays for David Wiggins: Identity, Truth and Value. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (1998). Bare possibilia. Erkenntnis, 48, 257–273.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2013). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2016). Modal science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46, 453–492.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (forthcoming). Semantic paradoxes and abductive methodology. In Armour-Garb, B., editor. The Relevance of the Liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zalta, E. N. (1988). Logical and analytical truths that are not necessary. Journal of Philosophy, 85, 57–74.Google Scholar