Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:39:01.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIVE-SAMENESS COUNTERPART THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

DELIA GRAFF FARA
DELIA GRAFF FARA*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
*
*PHILOSOPHY DEPT 212 1879 HALL PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRINCETON, NJ 08544 USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Just as set theory can be divorced from Ernst Zermelo's original axiomatization of it, counterpart theory can be divorced from the eight postulates that were originally stipulated by David Lewis (1968, p. 114) to constitute it. These were postulates governing some of the properties and relations holding among possible worlds and their inhabitants. In particular, counterpart theory can be divorced from Lewis's postulate P2, the stipulation that individuals are ‘world bound’—that none exists in more than one possible world

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 1 , Special Issue 2: Mathematical Methods in Philosophy , August 2008 , pp. 167 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2008

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

Bennett, K. (2004). Spatio-temporal coincidence and the grounding problem. Philosophical Studies, 118(3), 339–371.Google Scholar
Fara, D. G. (2001). Phenomenal continua and the sorites. Mind, 110(440), 905–935. Published under the name ‘Delia Graff’.Google Scholar
Fara, M., & Williamson, T. (2005). Counterparts and actuality. Mind, 114, 1–30.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2003). The non-identity of a material thing and its matter. Mind, 114, 195–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, G. (1982). Canonical counterpart theory. Analysis, 42(1), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, G. (1985). The Metaphysics of Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, G. (1990). Counterparts, logic and metaphysics: reply to Ramachandran. Analysis, 50, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1975). Contingent identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, A. (1979). Counterpart-theoretic semantics for modal logic. Journal of Philosophy, 76(6), 319–338.Google Scholar
Hodes, H. (1984). Axioms for actuality. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 13(1), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical considerations on modal logic. Acta Philosophical Fennica, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In Davidson, D., & Harman, G., editors, Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 253–355. Reprinted as Kripke [1980].Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1968). Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. Journal of Philosophy, 65(5), 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1971). Counterparts of persons and their bodies. Journal of Philosophy, 68(7), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prior, A. N. (1956). Modality and quantification in S5. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21(1), 60–62.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, M. (1989). An alternative translation scheme for counterpart theory. Analysis, 49, 131–141.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, M. (1990a). Contingent identity in counterpart theory. Analysis, 50, 163–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, M. (1990b). Unsuccessful revisions of CCT. Analysis, 50, 173–177.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, M. (1998). Sortal modal logic and counterpart theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76, 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. (1996). All the World's a stage. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(3), 433–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. (1999). Critical study of Michael Jubien's Ontology, Modality and the Fallacy of Reference. NOÛS, 33, 284–294.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1986). Counterparts and identity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 11, 121–140. Page references are to reprinted version Stalnaker [2003b].Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2003a). The interaction of modality with quantification and identity. In Sinnot-Armstrong, W., Raffman, D., & 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. (2003b). Ways a World Might Be. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J., & Byrne, A., editors. (2006). Content and Modality: Themes from the Philosophy of Robert Stalnaker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (1998). Bare possibilia. Erkenntnis. 48, 257–273.Google Scholar
Zermelo, E. (1908). Untersuchungen über die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre I. Mathematische Annalen, 65, 261–281. English translation in Heijenoort, Jean van, editor. (1967). From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Harvard University Press, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar