Abstract
AbstractContingentism is the view that it is contingent which things exist. Despite its plausibility, advocates of contingentism face a well-known ‘challenge’ to demonstrate that they can draw what appear to be intelligible modal distinctions (Williamson Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013). In this article, I argue that if certain controversial modal principles fail, the challenge contingentists face becomes much more difficult. Whereas extant challenges concern contingentists’ inability to draw quite theoretical second-order modal distinctions, I present a challenge which concerns contingentists’ inability to draw simpler first-order distinctions. This indicates that in certain modal settings there may well be significant first-order barriers to maintaining contingentism.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Bacon, A. (2018). The broadest necessity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 47, 733–783.
2. Bacon, A. (2020). Logical combinatorialism. Philosophical Review, 129, 537–589.
3. Boolos, G. (1984). To be is to be a value of a variable (or to be some values of some variables). Journal of Philosophy, 81, 430–449.
4. Boolos, G. (1985). Nominalist platonism. Philosophical Review, 94, 430–449.
5. Burgess, J. P., Hazen, A., & Lewis, D. (1991). Appendix on pairing. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.