Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Modal realism (Lewis) and materialism are logically independent doctrines: one can be a materialist nominalist who rejects possible worlds entirely.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Materialists need some account of possibility; modal realism provides the most rigorous one. Alternatives face serious explanatory costs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Rejecting possible worlds while maintaining materialist commitments creates tensions: how do counterfactuals get truth-conditions non-metaphysically?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Lewis's modal realism follows naturally from taking modality seriously within a physicalist framework, making separation artificial.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Materialism commits only to physical entities; modal realism adds abstract possible worlds, an ontologically distinct category.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Nominalists successfully defend materialism without possible worlds by treating modal claims as useful fictions or linguistic conventions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Modal realism and materialism solve different problems: one addresses modality, the other addresses composition—logically separable.
?
How convincing is this?
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.