Esteban Echaniz

This article reviews the main criticisms made to David Lewis's Counterpart Theory (CT) intwo distinct periods: 1971-1979 and 2001-2012. A counterpart, according to Lewis, is anentity that exists materially in another possible world, and the quality of that entity is thatit is similar, almost identical, to an individual in the actual world. The early critiques, byFeldman, Plantinga and Hazen, address fundamental problems related to the debate ontransmundane identity, the counterpart relation and the role of similarity in thecounterpart relation. Later critiques, by Chihara, Sider, Divers, Mackie and Hazen, focus on mainly logical and semantic aspects of CT, the intuitive character and its limitations incapturing modal properties. The article shows that, although CT has been influential inmetaphysical debates, its reliance on comparative similarity and lack of a sound logicalframework make it vulnerable to objections. Despite these challenges, the theory remainsa significant contribution to modal metaphysics, inspiring contemporary discussions ofpossible worlds and counterpart relations. This article seeks to provide a structuredoverview of the evolution of criticisms of CT and their implications for the philosophy of modality.

Elemer Nemesszeghy, S. J. (1925-2007), a Hungarian philosopher living in Chile between 1956 and 1971, taught Mathematical logic for fifteen years in a country that lacked a local tradition in the field. Despite his contributions, his figure has been omitted by both the historiography of logic and Chilean intellectual history. This article seeks to reconstruct Nemesszeghy’s philosophical and logical trajectory and to characterize his work from a historical-philosophical point of view. To this end, it analyzes his intellectual formation within the framework of the Central European neo-scholastic tradition, his links with the Lwów–Warsaw school and the Institut Supérieur de Philosophie of Louvain, and his institutional contributions to the Universidad Católica de Valparaíso. The article examines in detail his academic production, both solo and co-authored. From these texts, the technical and philosophical character of his production, its critical reception and its theoretical limitations are evaluated. It is argued that, although his work was neither propositional nor original in a strong sense, it constitutes a significant contribution to logical education in Chile and an early example of local appropriation of Mathematical logic. Finally, the structural and historiographical reasons that explain the relative oblivion of his figure are discussed, placing his legacy in the broader framework of the intellectual history of the formal sciences in the country.