Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T01:53:40.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contingently existing propositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Michael Nelson
Michael Nelson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of California, Riverside, USA
*
*Email: michael.nelson@ucr.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that propositions are contingent existents. Some propositions that in fact exist might not have existed and there might have been propositions that are distinct from every actually existing proposition. This is because some propositions are singular propositions, which are propositions containing ordinary objects as constituents, and so are ontologically dependent on the existence of those objects; had those objects not existed, then the singular propositions would not have existed. I provide both a philosophical and technical understanding of the contingent status of propositions.

Keywords

singular propositionsnecessitycontingencyexistence
Type
Modal Metaphysics
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 776 - 803
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, R. 1981. “Actualism and Thisness.” Synthese 49: 3–41.Google Scholar
Crossley, J., and Humberstone, I.. 1977. “The Logic of ‘Actually’.” Reports on Mathematical Logic 8: 11–29.Google Scholar
Deutsch, H. 1990. “Contingency and Modal Logic.” Philosophical Studies 60: 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, H. 1994. “Logic for Contingent Beings.” Journal of Philosophical Research 19: 273–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 1977. “Prior on the Construction of Possible Worlds and Instants.” In Worlds, Times and Selves, edited by Prior, A., and Fine, K., 116–161. Amherst: University of Masssachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1978. “Model Theory for Modal Logics: Part I — The De Re/De Dicto Distinction.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 7: 125–156.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1981. “Model Theory for Modal Logic — Part III: Existence and Predication.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 10: 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 1985. “Plantinga on the Reduction of Possibilist Discourse.” In Profiles: Alvin Plantinga, edited by Tomberlin, J., and van Inwagen, P., 145–186. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, G. 1996. “In Defense of Aristotelian Actualism.” Philosophical Perspectives 10: 53–71.Google Scholar
Garson, J. 2006. Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, B., and Zalta, E.. 1994. “In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic.” Philosophical Perspectives 8: 431–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menzel, C. 1991. “The True Modal Logic.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 20: 331–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, M., and Zalta, E.. 2012. “A Defense of Contingent Logical Truths.” Philosophical Studies 157: 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1983. “On Existentialism.” Philosophical Studies 44: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. 1957. Time and Modality. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2012. Mere Possibilities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2002. “Necessary Exitents.” In Logic, Thought, and Language, edited by O'Hear, A., 233–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalta, E. 1988. “Logical and Analytic Truths that are Not Necessary.” Journal of Philosophy 85: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar