Abstract
AbstractChisholm’s paradox serves as an important constraint on our modal theorising. For example, one lesson of the paradox is that widely accepted essentialist theses appear incompatible with metaphysical necessity obeying a logic that includes S4. However, this article cautions against treating Chisholm’s paradox in isolation, as a single line of reasoning. To this end, the article outlines two crucial morals about Chisholm’s paradox which situate the paradox within a broad family of paradoxes. Each moral places significant constraints on the paradox’s solution space. In light of this perspective, the paper applies the two morals to a recently proposed solution to Chisholm’s Paradox by Benj Hellie, Murray and Wilson (in: Bennett and Zimmerman (eds) Oxford studies in metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012).
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference26 articles.
1. Bacon, A. (2018). Vagueness and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bassford, A. D. (2019). A response to Chisholm’s paradox. Philosophical Studies,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01238-8.
3. Bealer, G. (2000). A theory of the a priori. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 81, 1–30.
4. Beall, J. C. (Ed.). (2011). Revenge of the liar: New essays on the paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Chalmers, D. (2002). Does conceivability entail possibility. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.