Kit Fine

A number of philosophers have recently become receptive to the idea that, in addition to scientific or causal explanation, there may be a distinctive kind of metaphysical explanation, in which explanans and explanandum are connected, not through some sort of causal mechanism, but through some constitutive form of determination. I myself have long been sympathetic to this idea of constitutive determination or ‘ontological ground’; and it is the aim of the present paper to help put the idea on a firmer footing - to explain how it is to be understood, how it relates to other ideas, and how it might be of use in philosophy.

In this thesis, I deal with the notions of a condition holding for some proposition and a proposition being true in a certain number of possible worlds. These notions are called propositional quantifiers and numerical modalizers respectively. In each chapter, I attempt to dispose of a system. A system consists of: a language; axioms and rules of inference; and an interpretation. To dispose of a system is to prove its decidability and its consistency and completeness for the given interpretation. I shall, in passing, make applications to de definability, translatability and other topics. In Chapter 1, I consider the system 5SQ. Its language is that of 55 with Q as a fresh unary operator. Its axioms and rules of inference are those for 85 plus the following special axiom-schemes for Q: 1) QA::>MA 2) Q A ::> L V L 3) L ::> 4) Q A ::> L Q A. 'QA' is interpreted as 'A is true in exactly one possible world.' I dispose of the system by showing that every formula in it is equivalent to one in normal form. In Chapter 2 I consider the system S5n. Its language is that of S5 but with the unary operators Qk for each non-negative integer k. Its axioms and rules are those of S5 plus the following special axiom-schemes for Qk: 1) Qk A>~Q1 A, 1˂K 2) Qk A ≡ Vki≡oQi ˄ Qk-I 3) L ˂ 4) Qk A ˂ L Qk A 5) Qo A ≡ L ~ A, 1 ≥ 0, k ≥ 1 ‘Qk A’ is interpreted as 'A is true in exactly k possible worlds.' I dispose of this system by generalising the normal forms of S5Q. In the chapters 3-5, I consider three systems which result from adding propositional quantifiers to S5. The first two systems, S5╥+ and S5╥, contain the usual axioms and rules for quantifiers. The first contains, in addition, the axiom-scheme G = )). The last, S5╥-, results from S5╥ by restricting the Scheme of Specification, viz., A > A, B free for P in A, to formulas B of the propositional calculus. To interpret these systems we must specify which propositions the variable P ranges over. For St╥-, we merely require that if p and q are propositions, then and are also propositions. For S5╥+, we also require that each possible world be describable i.e. that there be a proposition which is true in that world alone. And for S5╥, we require not that each possible world be describable but that there be a proposition which is true in just those possible worlds which are describable. Again, we dispose of the systems by normal forms. This requires that we eliminate quantifiers and nested occurrences of L by adding new symbols to the language. For S5╥+, the operators Qk suffice. For S5╥, the operators Qk suffice. For S5╥, we also require the constant g and a fresh unary operator N. For S5╥-, even greater additions are required. In the last two chapters, 6 and 7, I turn to systems which have essentially the same language as S5╥. However, ‘Qk A' is now interpreted as 'A is true in exactly k possible worlds accessible from the given world.' Different conditions on R, the relation of accessibility, lead to different axioms. In chapter 6 I consider the conditions of reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity, and in Chapter 7 the conditions of being a partial, convergent, total or dense order. I prove consistency and completeness by the method of maximally consistent systems. The method can yield decidability results, but I do not go into the matter. I have, as a rule, not given acknowledgements for well-established results or terminology. The main references are at the end of each chapter. Fuller references are in the bibliography.

It is my aim in this paper to show that the contemporary assimilation of essence to modality is fundamentally misguided and that, as a consequence, the corresponding conception of metaphysics should be given up. It is not my view that the modal account fails to capture anything which might reasonably be called a concept of essence. My point, rather, is that the notion of essence which is of central importance to the metaphysics of identity is not to be understood in modal terms or even to be regarded as extensionally equivalent to a modal notion. The one notion is, if I am right, a highly refined version of the other; it is like a sieve which performs a similar function but with a much finer mesh.

Towards the end of Theta.4 of the Metaphysics, Aristotle appears to endorse the obviously invalid modal principle that the truth of A will entail the truth of B if the possibility of A entails the possibility of B. I attempt to show how Aristotle's endorsement of the principle can be seen to arise from his accepting a non-standard interpretation of the modal operators and I indicate how the principle and its interpretation are of independent interest, quite apart from their role in understanding Aristotle