{"title":"容忍与对等理论","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many philosophers have thought that Tolerance Puzzles can be easily dissolved by adopting some form of counterpart theory, which is roughly the view that being possibly a certain way is having a counterpart that is that way. This chapter shows how standard versions of counterpart theory involve radical departures from standard modal logic (going far beyond Iteration-denial) which we claim are unacceptable, and argues that once counterpart theory is developed in such a way as to avoid such logical revisionism, it has no special capacity to resolve the puzzles.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"271 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tolerance and Counterpart Theory\",\"authors\":\"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many philosophers have thought that Tolerance Puzzles can be easily dissolved by adopting some form of counterpart theory, which is roughly the view that being possibly a certain way is having a counterpart that is that way. This chapter shows how standard versions of counterpart theory involve radical departures from standard modal logic (going far beyond Iteration-denial) which we claim are unacceptable, and argues that once counterpart theory is developed in such a way as to avoid such logical revisionism, it has no special capacity to resolve the puzzles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":324490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bounds of Possibility\",\"volume\":\"271 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bounds of Possibility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bounds of Possibility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Many philosophers have thought that Tolerance Puzzles can be easily dissolved by adopting some form of counterpart theory, which is roughly the view that being possibly a certain way is having a counterpart that is that way. This chapter shows how standard versions of counterpart theory involve radical departures from standard modal logic (going far beyond Iteration-denial) which we claim are unacceptable, and argues that once counterpart theory is developed in such a way as to avoid such logical revisionism, it has no special capacity to resolve the puzzles.