{"id":9386,"date":"2012-09-04T14:18:16","date_gmt":"2012-09-04T14:18:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/09\/04\/existence-and-contingency\/"},"modified":"2012-09-04T14:18:16","modified_gmt":"2012-09-04T14:18:16","slug":"existence-and-contingency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/09\/04\/existence-and-contingency\/","title":{"rendered":"Existence and Contingency"},"content":{"rendered":"

Let us return to the problem of contingency that I was belaboring in my last existence post.  Consider this reasoning:<\/span><\/p>\n

1. (x)(x = x).  Principle of Identity: everything is self-identical<\/span>
2. Venus = Venus.  From (1) by Universal Instantiation (UI)<\/span>
3. (\u2203x)(x = Venus).  From (2) by Existential Generalization (EG)<\/span>
4. (1) is logically true, hence necessarily true.<\/span>
5. If p is necessary, and p entails q, then q is necessary.  (Principle of Modal Logic)<\/span>
6. (3) is necessarily true.  The necessity of (1) is transmitted via the Modal Principle to (2), and then to (3)<\/span>
7. 'Venus exists' is contingent.<\/span>
8. If sentence s1 adequately translates sentence s2, then s1 preserves both the truth and the modal status of s2.  (Translation Principle)<\/span>
Therefore<\/span>
9. (3) is not an adequate translation of 'Venus exists': it preserves truth but not modal status.<\/span><\/p>\n

And of course this result is generalizable:  'x exists' cannot be adequately translated as '(\u2203y)(x = y).'  But that is the canonical translation on the Quinean version of the thin theory.  So the Quinean version is untenable.<\/span><\/p>\n

If you don't accept this argument, which premise or inference will you reject and why?<\/span><\/p>\n

If Venus exists, then of course it is identical to something.  But surely it is not contingent that Venus  is identical to something.  It is contingent, however, that Venus exists.  Therefore, the existence of Venus is not its identity to something.  Once again we see that the thin theory is false.<\/span> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Let us return to the problem of contingency that I was belaboring in my last existence post.  Consider this reasoning: 1. (x)(x = x).  Principle of Identity: everything is self-identical2. Venus = Venus.  From (1) by Universal Instantiation (UI)3. (\u2203x)(x = Venus).  From (2) by Existential Generalization (EG)4. (1) is logically true, hence necessarily true.5. … Continue reading “Existence and Contingency”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[142,235],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-existence","category-modal-matters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9386","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=9386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}