Kripke argued that BF's converse entails that actually existing individuals are necessarily possible, but BF itself entails that possible individuals actually exist—a commitment many find ontologically profligate.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Possibilism avoids arbitrary distinctions: if possible worlds are real frameworks, denying possible objects an ontological status is inconsistent.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Modal intuitions support this: we meaningfully discuss non-actual people (e.g., 'your possible children'), suggesting they deserve genuine ontological commitment.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Kripke correctly identified that BF's converse creates asymmetry: actual things must be possible, but possible things need not be actual—an unjustified hierarchy.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

1.Ontological parsimony remains fundamental: multiplying entities without necessity violates Occam's Razor and burdens theory with unmotivated commitments.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Discourse about possible non-actual individuals can be analyzed as quantification over abstract descriptions, not commitment to their real existence.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.BF itself may be rejected rather than embraced: restricting quantifiers to actualia avoids both converse and commitment problems entirely.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Key Terms

BF(Quantified modal logic): The Barcan Formula, a controversial principle provable in SQML but invalid in KQML
Converse(referring to some claim being discussed): The flipped version of a statement; if the original says 'A implies B,' the converse says 'B implies A.'
Kripke: Kripke refers to Saul Kripke, an influential American philosopher and logician known for revolutionizing how we think about names, meaning, and possibility. He argued that names like "Albert Einstein" refer directly to the actual person rather than through descriptions of their properties, which changed philosophy fundamentally. His work also introduced "possible worlds" as a way to understand concepts like necessity and possibility, making him one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century.
Necessarily possible(the conclusion drawn about how S5 treats possibility): Something that is not just possible in one situation, but *must* be possible in every conceivable situation—it's a guaranteed kind of possibility.
Ontologically profligate(combining two concepts: ontology (study of what exists) and profligate (wasteful)): Wasteful or excessive in terms of what you're claiming actually exists; adding too many things to your explanation when fewer would do.
entails(describes a logical relationship between statements): Logically forces or guarantees; if A entails B, then whenever A is true, B must also be true.
possible individuals(things that might exist but don't): Things (like people or objects) that could exist in some imaginable scenario, even if they don't actually exist in the real world right now.

Connections

1 topic

Modality & Possibility1 linked

BF itself may be rejected rather than embraced: restricting quantifiers to actua...Discourse about possible non-actual individuals can be analyzed as quantificatio...Kripke correctly identified that BF's converse creates asymmetry: actual things ...Modal intuitions support this: we meaningfully discuss non-actual people (e.g., ...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit