容忍与对等理论

C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多哲学家认为,通过采用某种形式的对应物理论,可以很容易地解决“容忍谜题”,也就是说,可能以某种方式存在,就有可能以另一种方式存在。本章展示了标准版本的对偶理论如何涉及对标准模态逻辑的彻底背离(远远超出了迭代否定),我们认为这是不可接受的,并认为一旦对偶理论以避免这种逻辑修正主义的方式发展,它就没有特殊的能力来解决难题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tolerance and Counterpart Theory
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信