In his Reply to Gaunilo , Anselm presented two additional arguments for the existence of God beyond those that appear in the Proslogion . In “The Logical Structure of Anselm's Argument,” Robert M. Adams isolates each. One, he develops into a modal ontological argument along the lines of other 20th century ontological arguments (e.g., those of Malcolm, Hartshorne, and Plantinga). The other he sets aside with the following remark: “[this argument] turns on the philosophy of time, not the philosophy of logic.” Now the argument's time has come. In this paper, I show the following: (i) this argument is valid in system K, and so requires fewer logical resources than other modal ontological arguments; (ii) its axiological premise is plausible, requiring only the judgment that a perfect being cannot begin to exist, and can be defended; (iii) its metaphysical premise follows from David Lewis's recombination approach to modal plenitude; (iv) unlike other modal ontological arguments, it requires as a premise only that a perfect being is possible, not that one is necessarily possible; and (v) while it avoids parodies and the charge of begging the question, it does face a symmetry counterargument, although one that is more complicated than standard symmetry objections.
{"title":"Anselm's Temporal‐Ontological Proof","authors":"Daniel Rubio","doi":"10.1111/nous.70028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70028","url":null,"abstract":"In his <jats:italic>Reply to Gaunilo</jats:italic> , Anselm presented two additional arguments for the existence of God beyond those that appear in the <jats:italic>Proslogion</jats:italic> . In “The Logical Structure of Anselm's Argument,” Robert M. Adams isolates each. One, he develops into a modal ontological argument along the lines of other 20th century ontological arguments (e.g., those of Malcolm, Hartshorne, and Plantinga). The other he sets aside with the following remark: “[this argument] turns on the philosophy of time, not the philosophy of logic.” Now the argument's time has come. In this paper, I show the following: (i) this argument is valid in system K, and so requires fewer logical resources than other modal ontological arguments; (ii) its axiological premise is plausible, requiring only the judgment that a perfect being cannot begin to exist, and can be defended; (iii) its metaphysical premise follows from David Lewis's recombination approach to modal plenitude; (iv) unlike other modal ontological arguments, it requires as a premise only that a perfect being is possible, not that one is necessarily possible; and (v) while it avoids parodies and the charge of begging the question, it does face a symmetry counterargument, although one that is more complicated than standard symmetry objections.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145801034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Roughly, the view I call “Additivism” sums up value across time and people. Given some standard assumptions, I show that Additivism follows from two principles. The first says that how lives align in time cannot, in itself, matter. The second says, roughly, that a world cannot be better unless it is better within some period or another. These principles, while plausible, presuppose a rich underlying structure of value—presuppositions that are implicit in the standard numerical framework of population ethics but that are often overlooked. A careful exploration of Additivism and the case for it reveals intricate connections between substantive questions about what value fundamentally consists in and structural questions about how to aggregate value.
{"title":"Aggregation and the Structure of Value","authors":"Weng Kin San","doi":"10.1111/nous.70026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70026","url":null,"abstract":"Roughly, the view I call “Additivism” sums up value across time and people. Given some standard assumptions, I show that Additivism follows from two principles. The first says that how lives align in time cannot, in itself, matter. The second says, roughly, that a world cannot be better unless it is better within some period or another. These principles, while plausible, presuppose a rich underlying structure of value—presuppositions that are implicit in the standard numerical framework of population ethics but that are often overlooked. A careful exploration of Additivism and the case for it reveals intricate connections between substantive questions about what value fundamentally consists in and structural questions about how to aggregate value.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145704018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is a truism of mathematics that differences between isomorphic number systems are irrelevant to arithmetic. This truism is deeply rooted in the modern axiomatic method and underlies most strands of arithmetical structuralism, the view that arithmetic is about some abstract number structure. In this paper, I challenge this truism by showing that isomorphic systems can differ with regard to important computational features of numbers. This confronts arithmetical structuralists with a dilemma. On the one hand, many computability‐theoretic properties are only satisfied by particular number systems, and are hence disqualified as irrelevant by structuralist accounts. On the other hand, these properties turn out to be highly relevant to arithmetical practice. Hence, as I argue, arithmetical structuralism is not a tenable view about arithmetic.
{"title":"Structure and Computation","authors":"Balthasar Grabmayr","doi":"10.1111/nous.70023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70023","url":null,"abstract":"It is a truism of mathematics that differences between isomorphic number systems are irrelevant to arithmetic. This truism is deeply rooted in the modern axiomatic method and underlies most strands of arithmetical structuralism, the view that arithmetic is about some abstract number structure. In this paper, I challenge this truism by showing that isomorphic systems can differ with regard to important computational features of numbers. This confronts arithmetical structuralists with a dilemma. On the one hand, many computability‐theoretic properties are only satisfied by particular number systems, and are hence disqualified as irrelevant by structuralist accounts. On the other hand, these properties turn out to be highly relevant to arithmetical practice. Hence, as I argue, arithmetical structuralism is not a tenable view about arithmetic.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145680250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is often taken for granted that right‐makers, that is, the things that make something—say, an action—right, do so by explaining why it is right. This view can be spelled out in terms of metaphysical ground: right‐making just is grounding of rightness facts. In this paper, I present three challenges to this view and argue that no purely ground‐based account of right‐making is fully satisfactory. Instead, I defend a novel version of a reasons‐based account, according to which right‐makers are grounds that ground in virtue of being a normative reason. This reasons‐based account, I shall argue, provides a unified solution to the challenges outlined and entails nuanced distinctions that alternative accounts brush aside. I show that my account is applicable to value‐making relations on the assumption that value is not prior to normative reasons. The discussion thus reveals a novel argument for buck‐passing accounts of value, that is, the view that value can be explained in terms of normative reasons.
{"title":"No Guide to Ground: Right‐Making and Right‐Makers","authors":"Singa Behrens","doi":"10.1111/nous.70027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70027","url":null,"abstract":"It is often taken for granted that right‐makers, that is, the things that make something—say, an action—right, do so by explaining why it is right. This view can be spelled out in terms of metaphysical ground: right‐making just is grounding of rightness facts. In this paper, I present three challenges to this view and argue that no purely ground‐based account of right‐making is fully satisfactory. Instead, I defend a novel version of a reasons‐based account, according to which right‐makers are grounds that ground in virtue of being a normative reason. This reasons‐based account, I shall argue, provides a unified solution to the challenges outlined and entails nuanced distinctions that alternative accounts brush aside. I show that my account is applicable to value‐making relations on the assumption that value is not prior to normative reasons. The discussion thus reveals a novel argument for buck‐passing accounts of value, that is, the view that value can be explained in terms of normative reasons.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145680211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some hold that expected utility is too restrictive in the way it handles risk. Risk‐weighted expected utility is an alternative that allows decision‐makers to have a range of attitudes toward probabilistic risk. It holds that any attitude within this range is instrumentally rational, since these attitudes represent different, equally good, strategies for taking the means to one's ends. A different challenge to expected utility is that it is too restrictive in the way it handles ambiguity—it requires decision‐makers to have sharp probabilities—and risk‐weighted expected utility shares this restrictive feature. This paper presents a generalization of risk‐weighted expected utility which allows for ambiguity. It defends this theory as a theory of instrumental rationality, and argues that attitudes toward risk and attitudes toward ambiguity each represent different but important features of instrumental rationality.
{"title":"Taking Risks, With and Without Probabilities","authors":"Lara Buchak","doi":"10.1111/nous.70018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70018","url":null,"abstract":"Some hold that expected utility is too restrictive in the way it handles risk. Risk‐weighted expected utility is an alternative that allows decision‐makers to have a range of attitudes toward probabilistic risk. It holds that any attitude within this range is instrumentally rational, since these attitudes represent different, equally good, strategies for taking the means to one's ends. A different challenge to expected utility is that it is too restrictive in the way it handles ambiguity—it requires decision‐makers to have sharp probabilities—and risk‐weighted expected utility shares this restrictive feature. This paper presents a generalization of risk‐weighted expected utility which allows for ambiguity. It defends this theory as a theory of instrumental rationality, and argues that attitudes toward risk and attitudes toward ambiguity each represent different but important features of instrumental rationality.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145553552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
How should we understand the duration of a pleasant or unpleasant sensation, insofar as its duration modulates how good or bad the experience is overall? Given that we seem able to distinguish between subjective and objective duration and that how well or badly someone's life goes is naturally thought of as something to be assessed from her own perspective, it seems intuitive that it is subjective duration that modulates how good or bad an experience is from the perspective of an individual's welfare. However, I argue that we know of no way to make sense of what subjective duration consists in on which this claim turns out to be plausible. Moreover, some plausible theories of what subjective duration consists in strongly suggest that subjective duration is irrelevant in itself.
{"title":"Welfare and Felt Duration","authors":"Andreas L. Mogensen","doi":"10.1111/nous.70022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70022","url":null,"abstract":"How should we understand the duration of a pleasant or unpleasant sensation, insofar as its duration modulates how good or bad the experience is overall? Given that we seem able to distinguish between subjective and objective duration and that how well or badly someone's life goes is naturally thought of as something to be assessed from her own perspective, it seems intuitive that it is subjective duration that modulates how good or bad an experience is from the perspective of an individual's welfare. However, I argue that we know of no way to make sense of what subjective duration consists in on which this claim turns out to be plausible. Moreover, some plausible theories of what subjective duration consists in strongly suggest that subjective duration is irrelevant in itself.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145492491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
“Almost everyone,” Ronald Dworkin wrote in Sovereign Virtue , “assumes that democracy means equal voting power.” What, then, is voting power? The standard view defines it as the probability that a vote changes the outcome assuming that each possible combination of votes is equiprobable. This has significant implications: institutions like the US Electoral College give disproportionate voting power to voters in large states. But the standard view cannot be true. As an a priori account, it rests on the principle of indifference, and thus faces the problem of multiple partitions: we could assign an equal probability to each possible combination of votes or to each possible vote share. The choice to partition in terms of combinations of votes is arbitrary, and makes the standard view objectionably overconfident. These problems of arbitrariness and overconfidence undermine the standard view's main implications. And they call into question whether equal voting power should play a central role in democratic theory.
{"title":"What Voting Power Cannot Be","authors":"Daniel Wodak","doi":"10.1111/nous.70019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70019","url":null,"abstract":"“Almost everyone,” Ronald Dworkin wrote in <jats:italic>Sovereign Virtue</jats:italic> , “assumes that democracy means equal voting power.” What, then, is voting power? The standard view defines it as the probability that a vote changes the outcome assuming that each possible combination of votes is equiprobable. This has significant implications: institutions like the US Electoral College give disproportionate voting power to voters in large states. But the standard view cannot be true. As an a priori account, it rests on the principle of indifference, and thus faces the problem of multiple partitions: we could assign an equal probability to each possible combination of votes <jats:italic>or</jats:italic> to each possible vote share. The choice to partition in terms of combinations of votes is arbitrary, and makes the standard view objectionably overconfident. These problems of arbitrariness and overconfidence undermine the standard view's main implications. And they call into question whether equal voting power should play a central role in democratic theory.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145441132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Bertrand Russell, Karin Costelloe‐Stephen, and Temporal Experience","authors":"Emily Thomas","doi":"10.1111/nous.70020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145427725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present paper presents a new (formal) theory of presence according to which, roughly, to be present at a place is to have a delegate located at that place. One crucial feature of the theory is that something can be present at a place without thereby being located there. The theory is then applied to several central issues in metaphysics, such as persistence through times and worlds, theories of universals, the ontology of social entities, and the nature of God.
{"title":"Towards a theory of presence","authors":"Claudio Calosi","doi":"10.1111/nous.70016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70016","url":null,"abstract":"The present paper presents a new (formal) theory of presence according to which, roughly, to be present at a place is to have a delegate located at that place. One crucial feature of the theory is that something can be present at a place without thereby being located there. The theory is then applied to several central issues in metaphysics, such as persistence through times and worlds, theories of universals, the ontology of social entities, and the nature of God.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145247099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Peter J. Graham, Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen
Is the epistemic norm governing assertion essential to assertion? Is the norm constitutive of the very nature of the speech act? Some say it cannot be so because assertion patterns very differently than playing games when it comes to breaking constitutive rules. You can break the rule of assertion in various ways and still assert, but you cannot break the rules of games in just that way and still assert. We should then conclude that the epistemic rule of assertion merely regulates assertion, so that assertion is not essentially a rule‐governed kind. We show prominent arguments along these lines fall short, based on a better understanding of what it is to play a game. To evaluate arguments about the nature of asserting, one needs to know more about playing games.
{"title":"Playing and asserting","authors":"Peter J. Graham, Nikolaj Jang Lee Linding Pedersen","doi":"10.1111/nous.70017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.70017","url":null,"abstract":"Is the epistemic norm governing assertion essential to assertion? Is the norm constitutive of the very nature of the speech act? Some say it cannot be so because assertion patterns very differently than playing games when it comes to breaking constitutive rules. You can break the rule of assertion in various ways and still assert, but you cannot break the rules of games in just that way and still assert. We should then conclude that the epistemic rule of assertion merely regulates assertion, so that assertion is not essentially a rule‐governed kind. We show prominent arguments along these lines fall short, based on a better understanding of what it is to play a game. To evaluate arguments about the nature of asserting, one needs to know more about playing games.","PeriodicalId":501006,"journal":{"name":"Noûs","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145246551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：