This essay presents a comparison of modal theories with flexible and constant domain of individuals. Whatś called the simplest quantified modal logic represents the latter type. However, it has some controversial consequences: the fact that all objects of discourse exist necessarily, and the fact that to every merely possible object there corresponds an actual one. These drawbacks are eliminated by the Kripke models, which postulate possible worlds with a flexible domain of objects. Proponents o…
Read moreThis essay presents a comparison of modal theories with flexible and constant domain of individuals. Whatś called the simplest quantified modal logic represents the latter type. However, it has some controversial consequences: the fact that all objects of discourse exist necessarily, and the fact that to every merely possible object there corresponds an actual one. These drawbacks are eliminated by the Kripke models, which postulate possible worlds with a flexible domain of objects. Proponents of TIL return to the theory with the constant domain and attempt to elucidate what mistakes lead Kripkeś followers to endorsement of models with the flexible domain, and explain-away the alleged problems of the constant domain. This work aims at clarifying the character of the attitude of TIL proponents and showing that the arguments for accepting the constant domain they provide are not completely satisfactory due to the role proper names play in their theory.
