莱布尼茨与刘易斯论模态形而上学与宿命论

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Chloe Armstrong
{"title":"莱布尼茨与刘易斯论模态形而上学与宿命论","authors":"Chloe Armstrong","doi":"10.5840/QD2017725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the philosophical systems of G. W. Leibniz and David Lewis both feature possible worlds, the ways in which their systems are similar and dissimilar are ultimately surprising. At first glance, Leibniz's modal metaphysics might strike us as one of the most contemporarily relevant aspects of his system. But I clarify in this paper major interpretive problems that result from understanding Leibniz's system in terms of contemporary views (like Lewis's, for instance). Specifically, I argue that Leibniz rejects the inference that if something is possible, it therefore occurs in some possible world. This discussion highlights how Leibniz's account of individual substance (with his strict notion of identity) constrains his modal theorizing and produces fatalistic threats. I then make an unexpected connection between Leibniz's and Lewis's systems by showing that Leibniz's treatment of fatalism bears similarities to the response Lewis gives to the fatalist when considering the paradoxes of time travel.","PeriodicalId":40384,"journal":{"name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"59 1","pages":"72 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Leibniz and Lewis on Modal Metaphysics and Fatalism\",\"authors\":\"Chloe Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/QD2017725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although the philosophical systems of G. W. Leibniz and David Lewis both feature possible worlds, the ways in which their systems are similar and dissimilar are ultimately surprising. At first glance, Leibniz's modal metaphysics might strike us as one of the most contemporarily relevant aspects of his system. But I clarify in this paper major interpretive problems that result from understanding Leibniz's system in terms of contemporary views (like Lewis's, for instance). Specifically, I argue that Leibniz rejects the inference that if something is possible, it therefore occurs in some possible world. This discussion highlights how Leibniz's account of individual substance (with his strict notion of identity) constrains his modal theorizing and produces fatalistic threats. I then make an unexpected connection between Leibniz's and Lewis's systems by showing that Leibniz's treatment of fatalism bears similarities to the response Lewis gives to the fatalist when considering the paradoxes of time travel.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quaestiones Disputatae\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"72 - 96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quaestiones Disputatae\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017725\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestiones Disputatae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/QD2017725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

虽然g·w·莱布尼茨和大卫·刘易斯的哲学体系都以可能世界为特征,但他们体系的相似和不同之处最终还是令人惊讶的。乍一看,莱布尼茨的模态形而上学可能是他的体系中最具当代意义的方面之一。但我在本文中澄清了从当代观点(例如刘易斯的观点)理解莱布尼茨体系所产生的主要解释性问题。具体来说,我认为莱布尼茨拒绝这样的推论:如果某件事是可能的,那么它就会发生在某个可能的世界中。这个讨论强调了莱布尼茨对个体实体的描述(以及他严格的同一性概念)如何限制了他的模态理论化,并产生了宿命论的威胁。然后,我通过展示莱布尼茨对宿命论的处理与刘易斯在考虑时间旅行悖论时对宿命论的回应有相似之处,在莱布尼茨和刘易斯的系统之间建立了一个意想不到的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Leibniz and Lewis on Modal Metaphysics and Fatalism
Although the philosophical systems of G. W. Leibniz and David Lewis both feature possible worlds, the ways in which their systems are similar and dissimilar are ultimately surprising. At first glance, Leibniz's modal metaphysics might strike us as one of the most contemporarily relevant aspects of his system. But I clarify in this paper major interpretive problems that result from understanding Leibniz's system in terms of contemporary views (like Lewis's, for instance). Specifically, I argue that Leibniz rejects the inference that if something is possible, it therefore occurs in some possible world. This discussion highlights how Leibniz's account of individual substance (with his strict notion of identity) constrains his modal theorizing and produces fatalistic threats. I then make an unexpected connection between Leibniz's and Lewis's systems by showing that Leibniz's treatment of fatalism bears similarities to the response Lewis gives to the fatalist when considering the paradoxes of time travel.
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
Quaestiones Disputatae
Quaestiones Disputatae HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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