What in the world are the ways things might have been?

Philosophical Studies

Volumn 133, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 443-453

  King, Jeffrey C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Actualism; Epistemic possibility; Impossible worlds; Modality; Necessary a posteriori; Necessary a priori; Possible worlds; Properties

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947710648     PISSN: 00318116     EISSN: 15730883     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11098-006-9063-y     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Adams, R. (1974). Theories of actuality. Nous, 5, 211-231.
2. Armstrong, D. (1978). Universals and scientific realism (Vol. I and II). Cambridge University Press.
3. King, J. C. (1998). What is a philosophical analysis? Philosophical Studies, 90, 155-179.
4. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
5. Naylor, M. B. (1986). A note on David Lewis's realism about possible worlds. Analysis, 46, 28-29.
6. Soames, S. (2005). Reference and description: The case against two-dimensionalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Soames, S. (2003). Philosophical analysis in the twentieth century volume 2: The age of meaning. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
8. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Stalnaker, R. (1986). Possible worlds and situations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15, 109-123.
10. Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Stalnaker, R. (2003). Ways a world might be. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Yagisawa, T. (1988). Beyond possible worlds. Philosophical Studies, 53, 175-204.