Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
John Divers (2016)
Publisher: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Journal: Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: B1-5802, applicability., B, models of modal space, Philosophy. Psychology. Religion, Kripke, possible-world semantics, Philosophy (General), pure and applied semantics
http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2016v20n1p1 In ‘Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic’, Kripke articulates his project in the discourse of “possible worlds”. There has been much philosophical discussion of whether endorsement of the Kripke semantics brings ontological commitment to possible worlds. However, that discussion is less than satisfactory because it has been conducted without the necessary investigation of the surrounding philosophical issues that are raised by the Kripke semantics. My aim in this paper is to map out the surrounding territory and to commence that investigation. Among the surrounding issues, and my attitudes to them, are these: (1) the potential of the standard distinction between pure and impure versions of the semantic theory has been under-exploited; (2) there has been under-estimation of what is achieved by the pure semantic theory alone; (3) there is a methodological imperative to co-ordinate a clear conception of the purposes of the impure theory with an equally clear conception of the content the theory; (4) there is a need to support by argument claims about how such a semantic theory, even in an impure state, can fund explanations in the theory of meaning and metaphysics; (5) greater attention needs to be paid to the crucial advance that Kripke makes on the precursors of possible-worlds semantics proper (e.g. Carnap 1947) in clearly distinguishing variation across the worlds within a model of modal space from variation across such models and, finally, (6) the normative nature of the concept of applicability, of the pure semantic theory, is both of crucial importance and largely ignored.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Barcan, C. 1946. A Functional Calculus of First Order Based on Strict Implication. Journal of Symbolic Logic 11: 1-16.
    • Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J. & Wolter, F. (eds.) 2006. Handbook of Modal Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    • Carnap, R. 1947. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    • Davidson, D. 1977. Reality Without Reference. Dialectica 31(3-4): 247-58.
    • ---. 1978. What Metaphors Mean. Critical Inquiry 5(1): 31-47.
    • Divers, J. 1995. Modal Fictionalism cannot Deliver Possible-Worlds Semantics. Analysis 55(2): 81-9.
    • ---. 2002. Possible Worlds. London: Routledge.
    • ---. 2004. Agnosticism About Other Worlds: A New Antirealist Programme in Modality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49: 659-84.
    • ---. 2006. Possible-Worlds Semantics Without Possible Worlds: The Agnostic Approach. Mind 115: 187-225.
    • Fine, K. 1978. Postscript. In: Prior & Fine1978, 116-61.
    • Forbes, G. 1985. The Metaphysics of Modality. Oxford: Clarendon.
    • ---. 1989. The Languages of Possibility. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • Frege, G. 1892. On Sense and Reference. In: A Frege Reader. Beaney, M. (ed). Blackwell: Oxford 1997, p.151-71.
    • Hale, B. 1996. Absolute Necessities. Philosophical Perspectives 99
    • Hintikkaa, J. 1961. Modality and Quantification. Theoria 27: 119-28.
    • Hodes, H. 1984. On Modal Logics which Enrich First-Order S5. Journal of Philosophical Logic 13: 423-54.
    • Hughes, G. & Cresswell, M. 1996. A New Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Routledge.
    • Kripke, S.A.1959. A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 24: 1-15
    • ---. 1963. Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16: 83- 94.
    • ---. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell
    • Lewis, D. 1968. Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophy 65: 113-26.
    • ---. 1986. On The Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell
    • Linsky, B. & Zalta, E. 1994. In Defense of the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic. Philosophical Perspectives 8: 431-58.
    • ---. 1996. In Defense of the Contingently Non-Concrete. Philosophical Studies 84: 283- 94.
    • McFetridge, I. 1990. Logical Necessity: Some Issues. In: Logical Necessity and Other Essays. Aristotelian Society Series Volume 11. London: Longdunn Press, 135-54.
    • Nolan, D. 2013. Impossible Worlds. Philosophy Compass 8: 360-72.
    • Plantinga, A. 1974. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon.
    • Prior, A. N. 1956. Modality and Quantification in S5. Journal of Symbolic Logic 21: 60-2.
    • ---. 1957. Time and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press
    • Prior, A. N. & Fine, K.1978. Worlds, Times and Selves. London: Duckworth.
    • Quine, W. V. O. 1953. Reference and Modality. In: From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press, p.139-59.
    • ---. 1969. Speaking of Objects. In: Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press, p.1-25
    • ---. 1972. Review of Milton K. Munitz (ed.) Identity and Individuation. Journal of Philosophy 69: 488-97.
    • ---. 1980. Postscript On Metaphor. In: Theories and Things. Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press, p.187-9
    • Rosen, G. 1990. Modal Fictionalism. Mind 99: 327-54.
    • Salmon, N. 1984. Impossible Worlds. Analysis 44: 114-7.
    • Stalnaker, R. 2012. Mere Possibilities. Princeton, New Jersey: University of Princeton Press.
    • Strawson, P. F. 1950. On Referring. Mind 59: 320-44.
    • Williamson, T. 1998. Bare Possibilia. Erkenntnis 48: 257-73.
    • ---. 2013. Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.