Toward a Scotistic Modal Metaphysics
ABSTRACT: The problem I tackle in this essay is: Do we have in Scotus a modal logic or a counterpart theory? We need to take a rather roundabout path to handle this problem. This is because, whether it be in Lewis's original formulation or in others' applications, the crucial concept of 'counterpart' has never been clearly explicated. In section two, I shall therefore examine the recent controversy concerning Leibniz's views on modalities which centers around the counterpart relation. By fully exploiting the lessons learned from such an examination, I shall then launch a trilemma against a Leibnizian in section three. Section four shall make the claim that unlike Leibniz's case, Scotus's position is not endangered by the trilemma. One important premise will be adopted from my thesis presented elsewhere regarding the different between Scotus's haecceitas and Leibniz's individual essence. Another will be secured from a brief report on Scotus's views on similarity, which might be utterly original to modern eyes jaundiced by contemporary set theories.
1. The Problem: Scotistic Modal Logic vs. Scotistic Counterpart Theory
Thanks to the resurgence of interest in modalities in the twentieth century, the history of modal logic has been studied more extensively than ever. One of the more important lessons is that Scotus rather than Leibniz is the father of the modern conception of logical possibility. (1) Insofar as it is not merely historical curiosity but a test of our intuition about modalities that we are interested in the predecessors of modern modal logic, we face the urgent task of reconstructing the Scotistic system of modalities. In fact,
Douglas C. Langston recently raised an interesting question as to which way of understanding possible worlds Scotus might endorse: the counterpart view or the canonical view? Based on Ordinatio, Book I, d. 44, q. 1, n. 11, he presents two alternative readings. Ultimately, however, he opts for the counterpart reading on the ground that it is more consistent with Scotus's remarks on how God knows contingents. An important consequence from the counterpart reading is that individuals are "world-bound" for Scotus. (2) Yet Langston's interpretation invites serious criticism. According to Simo Knuuttila, if the individuals in Scotus's model were world-bound, they would not have synchronic de re alternatives, which is not compatible with Scotus's reform in obligational principles. Knuuttila further points out that Scotus's well-known doctrine of human free will excludes the possibility of world-bound individuals.
Originalism, an orthodox principle of legal interpretation, focuses on interpretation pursuant to the original understanding of constitutional words . This incorporates arguments from the ‘text, context, purpose and structure of the constitution’. The originalist method of constitutional in...
They were both autocrats, believing that all decisions concerning the countries in which they lived should be made by them. They both wanted to expand their countries—not only physically, in the context of gaining more and more land, but also building up strong armies and increasing their countries prestige. They both invested a lot of time and money into the creation of their own “places,” for Louis XIV, Versailles, and for Peter the Great, St. Petersburg (specifically the Hagia Sofia.) They both also put a great deal of time, effort and energy into the military forces where they ruled. Louis IV did this with the help of Turenne, the marshal general of France. Peter the Great created the first Russian navy, reorganized the army, got rid of the Streltzky, and adopted the western idea of colleges. To provide for all this expanding of his military, Peter the Great introduced many new taxes, including a soul tax—a tax for simply being alive.
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
The age of exploration and discovery in Europe was a time of various absolute rulers. An absolute monarch is a ruler who has unlimited power and controls every aspect of life. Many rulers were great examples of absolute monarchs, but none of them even compared to the absolute monarch Peter the Great of Russia. Peter I, more commonly known as Peter the Great, was born June 9, 1672. At ten years of age, Peter took over the throne, but other people helped him make decisions. He was obliged to rule with his mentally challenged half-brother, Ivan (Beck, 609). It wasn’t until after Ivan died that he gained complete control and was the sole ruler of Russia. During his own reign, he was able to change the way Russia operated. He was aware that his country was behind the rest of his world in many things, such as culture and technology. He was determined to change Russia for the better. With his determination and love for Russia, he was able to conquer his ideas and was able to do what he wanted with his nation. His ruling is known as the period of transformation because, thanks to him, he was able to lead Russia in the right direction and modernize it. Peter the Great was an absolute monarch; he changed Russia’s culture, created new cities, and reformed the church.
Before Russia was ruled by Peter the Great, Russia was much less developed than other countries in Europe. Peter the Great determined that the best way to catch the European powers was to follow the European footstep. He looked for Western technicians and scholars while he simultaneously sent Russians to European schools and vocations so they could one day return as experienced Europeans ready to teach the next generation of Russians. He reformed Russia, turning it into a modernized empire relying on advanced military, efficient government, great education resources and extensive trading with other countries.
Russian society before Peter’s rule was in a problematic situation because, their army was failing as well as their economy. When Peter the Great came to rule Russia, he used absolutism as a way to increase his country and his own power. During his reign, Peter was building a strong army, expanding his territory and Westernizing Russia. In an effort to Westernize Russia, Peter adapted new ideas from Europe. As a result, Peter had an overall positive impact on Russia.
Peter The Great was the leader of Russia in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s. He did many good things and some bad things for Russia. Before Peter came into power, Russia was still in the Middle Ages. Peter helped launch Russia into the modern age by educating his people, modernizing technology and making new military advances. Some people may make the argument that Peter was a bad leader because of how he taxed his people heavily in order to fund these new advancements.
In the book Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, J. Budziszewski, approaches the question of government through nature and its limits. This book informs the reader on how natural law plays a role in answering political and ethical questions. This is done by review of four major philosophers and their works. In the following few pages we will focus on his review of Thomas Aquinas, and how his catholic faith affected his understanding of natural law as he understood the works of Aristotle.
(18) It should be noted that Western Law is deeply divided between Anglo-American and Continental European tradition. Nevertheless I shall not touch this division in the paper, which deals most of all with the philosophical aspect of the problem for which both of them are very close.
Since its inception, gene therapy has captured the attention of the public and ethics disciplines as a therapeutic application of human genetic engineering. The latter, in particular, has lead to concerns about germline modification and questions about the distinction between therapy and enhancement. The development of the gene therapy field and its progress to the clinic has not been without controversy. Although initially considered as a promising approach for treating the genetic of disease, the field has attracted disappointment for failing to fulfil its potential. With the resolution of many of the barriers that restricted the progress of gene therapy and increasing reports of clinical success, it is now generally recognised that earlier expectations may have been premature.
Seligman, L., & Reichenberg, L. W., (2010). Solution-focused brief therapy. In J. Johnston (Ed.), Theories of counseling and psychotherapy: systems, strategies, and skills.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education
29 Heinrich A. Rommen, The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1998), 119-121.
McInerny, Ralph. Treatise on law: (Summa Theologica, questions 90-97). Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 1996. Print.
Dworkin formulated and advocated an updated version of the liberal legal theory which represented the recognition of the priority of the individual, the freedom, and self-assurance. From this perspective, Dworkin sharply criticized the liberal theory of law that prevailed in the Anglo-American common law. Dworkin emphasizes the leading liberal idea of individual rights and offers his vision of the general theory of law that should be both normative and conceptual. Hart, on the contrary, criticizes the classical positivist definition of law as the sovereign order. Firstly, he claims that there is a small proportion of orders in the today’s law. Secondly, there is no absolute power of the sovereign in the modern societies. The law regulates the activities of each branch, and it would be absurd to suggest restriction of the subject with the own orders.
(16) Ibid., i. iv. v. Hume's maxim "all that is distinct is separable" and the outright neglect, in both Locke and Hume, of the modal distinction are points that cry out for criticism. However, as the thrust of this paper is limited, these will have to be covered more thoroughly elsewhere.