{"id":12819,"date":"2009-02-12T14:56:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-12T14:56:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/02\/12\/are-there-nonepistemic-uses-of-might\/"},"modified":"2009-02-12T14:56:00","modified_gmt":"2009-02-12T14:56:00","slug":"are-there-nonepistemic-uses-of-might","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2009\/02\/12\/are-there-nonepistemic-uses-of-might\/","title":{"rendered":"Putting My Contingency Into English: Are There Legitimate Non-Epistemic Uses of ‘Might’?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I exist now.  But my nonexistence now is possible. ('Now' picks out the same time in both of its occurrences.) 'Possible' in my second sentence is not intended epistemically.  Surely it would be absurd were I to say, 'My nonexistence now is possible for all I<\/span> know' or 'My nonexistence now is not ruled out by what I now know or believe.'  If I am certain of anything, I am certain that I exist, and that rules out my present nonexistence. So in the second sentence above 'possible' is to be taken non-epistemically.  The metaphysical point is that I am a contingent being.  But how put this into ordinary English?<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Suppose I say to a competent English speaker who is a nonphilosopher: 'Although I now exist, it is possible that I not now exist.'  It is unlikely that he will understand me.  He may even consider me crazy.  So my problem is this:  How do I convey in ordinary correct English the compound proposition: BV now exists & possibly, BV does not exist?<\/em>  The issue at present is not whether the second conjunct of this compound proposition is true, or how one knows it to be true if it is true; the question concerns the correct ordinary language rendition of the proposition.<\/font><\/p>\n

I have more than once in these pages used such locutions as  'I might not have existed,' 'I might never have existed,' 'I might not have existed now.'  They sound correct to my ear.  But a professional writer friend considers them bad English.  His claim is that  'might' has only epistemic uses in correct English. Is my friend right?<\/font><\/p>\n

Compare (a) 'I might not exist now,' (b) 'I might not exist tomorrow,' (c) 'I might not have existed now,' and (d) 'I might never  have existed.'  I claim that (a) and (b) feature epistemic uses of 'might' while (c) and (d) feature non-epistemic uses.  The linguistic impropriety of (a) is due precisely to its inclusion of an epistemic use of 'might.'  In almost all contexts (a) is either nonsense or evidence that the utterer is in a very strange mental state.  (b), however, is perfectly in order.  It is easy to imagine contexts in which its utterance makes sense.  <\/font><\/p>\n

With respect to (c), my claim is that it is a correct English sentence and that it makes sense.  Because it does make sense, the 'might' it features expresses metaphysical possibility as opposed to epistemic possibility. The same goes for (d).  It is an acceptable English sentence which is evidence that there are legitimate non-epistemic uses of 'might.'<\/font><\/p>\n

But suppose my writer friend persists and starts whacking me upside the head with his badly dated copy of Fowler.  Then I would challenge him to say what I want to say without using 'might.'  How would he rewrite (c)?<\/font><\/p>\n

Consider (e) 'I could not have existed now' and (f) 'I could not exist now' and (g) 'I can not exist now.'  Of these three only (f) is serviceable, but it strikes me as distinctly inferior to (c).<\/font><\/p>\n

My conclusion is that there are legitimate non-epistemic uses of 'might.'  My friend also opined that 'could' is  used correctly only in a non-epistemic way.  But that too strikes me as false.  Suppose I ask my wife, 'Does Mike Baumer still teach at Cleveland State?'  She could with all due linguistic propriety reply, 'Could be!'  She would not thereby be expressing any real possibility, but only an epistemic possibility.  For all she knows, Mike is still there.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I exist now.  But my nonexistence now is possible. ('Now' picks out the same time in both of its occurrences.) 'Possible' in my second sentence is not intended epistemically.  Surely it would be absurd were I to say, 'My nonexistence now is possible for all I know' or 'My nonexistence now is not ruled out by … Continue reading “Putting My Contingency Into English: Are There Legitimate Non-Epistemic Uses of ‘Might’?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,235],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-matters","category-modal-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12819","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12819\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}