{"title":"潜力,形态和时间","authors":"Jennifer Wang","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.281","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Barbara Vetter’s project in Potentiality is to articulate and defend a dispositionalist theory of modality based on potentialities. My focus is on the metaphysics of her positive theory. I consider one of Vetter’s main targets, David Lewis’s theory of possible worlds, and use it to distinguish what I call “ de re first” approaches from “ de dicto first” approaches. This way of framing the disagreement helps shed light on what their respective accounts can intuitively accomplish. In particular, I introduce objections to Vetter’s requirement that the grounds of de dicto modal truths must be routed through time. I also suggest an alternative de dicto first approach that Vetter does not consider, one which does not come saddled with Lewis’s ontology or with Vetter’s issues with de dicto modal truths. Rather, on incompatibilism, modality is grounded on second-order relations between (non-potentialist) properties, e.g. incompatibility or entailment. Defenders of de dicto first approaches, including incompatibilism, can better account for such de dicto modal truths, thus undermining some of the intuitive appeal of Vetter’s theory.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":"3 1","pages":"185-198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potentiality, modality, and time\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.281\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Barbara Vetter’s project in Potentiality is to articulate and defend a dispositionalist theory of modality based on potentialities. My focus is on the metaphysics of her positive theory. I consider one of Vetter’s main targets, David Lewis’s theory of possible worlds, and use it to distinguish what I call “ de re first” approaches from “ de dicto first” approaches. This way of framing the disagreement helps shed light on what their respective accounts can intuitively accomplish. In particular, I introduce objections to Vetter’s requirement that the grounds of de dicto modal truths must be routed through time. I also suggest an alternative de dicto first approach that Vetter does not consider, one which does not come saddled with Lewis’s ontology or with Vetter’s issues with de dicto modal truths. Rather, on incompatibilism, modality is grounded on second-order relations between (non-potentialist) properties, e.g. incompatibility or entailment. Defenders of de dicto first approaches, including incompatibilism, can better account for such de dicto modal truths, thus undermining some of the intuitive appeal of Vetter’s theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"185-198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.281\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.281","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
芭芭拉·维特(Barbara Vetter)在《潜能》一书中的项目是阐明并捍卫基于潜能的情态的配置主义理论。我关注的是她积极理论的形而上学。我考虑了Vetter的主要目标之一,David Lewis的可能世界理论,并用它来区分我所谓的“de re first”方法和“de dicto first”方法。这种表达分歧的方式有助于阐明他们各自的说法直觉上能达到的效果。特别地,我将介绍对Vetter的要求的反对意见,即dicto模态真理的基础必须穿越时间。我还提出了另一种Vetter没有考虑到的dicto first方法,它不受Lewis的本体论或Vetter关于dicto模态真理的问题的影响。相反,在不容性上,情态是建立在(非潜在的)性质之间的二阶关系上的,例如不容性或蕴涵。包括不相容论在内的“自言自语优先”方法的捍卫者可以更好地解释这种自言自语的模态真理,从而削弱了维特理论的一些直观吸引力。
Barbara Vetter’s project in Potentiality is to articulate and defend a dispositionalist theory of modality based on potentialities. My focus is on the metaphysics of her positive theory. I consider one of Vetter’s main targets, David Lewis’s theory of possible worlds, and use it to distinguish what I call “ de re first” approaches from “ de dicto first” approaches. This way of framing the disagreement helps shed light on what their respective accounts can intuitively accomplish. In particular, I introduce objections to Vetter’s requirement that the grounds of de dicto modal truths must be routed through time. I also suggest an alternative de dicto first approach that Vetter does not consider, one which does not come saddled with Lewis’s ontology or with Vetter’s issues with de dicto modal truths. Rather, on incompatibilism, modality is grounded on second-order relations between (non-potentialist) properties, e.g. incompatibility or entailment. Defenders of de dicto first approaches, including incompatibilism, can better account for such de dicto modal truths, thus undermining some of the intuitive appeal of Vetter’s theory.