Karol Lenart

W artykule analizuję teorię tzw. arystotelesowskiego aktualizmu w kontekście światów możliwych, ujmującej światy możliwe jako kompletne i spójne zbiory sądów. Według tej teorii, istnienie przynajmniej niektórych światów możliwych ontologicznie zależy od tego, co istnieje. Jest tak dlatego, ponieważ sądy jednostkowe o przygodnych indywiduach również istnieją w sposób przygodny. Skoro zaś modalności są analizowane w terminach światów możliwych, arystotelesowski aktualizm pociąga za sobą, że niektóre modalności również zachodzą w sposób przygodny. Pogląd ten natrafia jednak na poważny problem. Jeżeli jakieś indywiduum x nie istnieje, to nie ma o nim sądów jednostkowych, w tym sądu [x nie istnieje]. Jeśli tak, to [x nie istnieje] nie jest prawdą, jeżeli x nie istnieje, co jest niedorzeczne. W artykule pokazuję, że arystotelesowski aktualista może rozwiązać ten problem, wprowadzając dwa sensy prawdziwości sądów w stosunku do światów możliwych: prawdziwość w świecie oraz względem świata. Niektórzy uważają, że podział ten nie jest substancjalny, ponieważ pojęcie „prawdy względem świata” nie jest rzeczowe. Celem artykułu jest wykazanie, że to pojęcie ma charakter rzeczowy. Argumentuję za tym, wskazując niezbywalność pojęcia „prawdy względem świata” w wyjaśnianiu kilku kluczowych cech światów możliwych (a szerzej – modalności), postulowanych przez arystotelesowski aktualizm.

In this paper, I analyze the theory of Aristotelian actualism about possible worlds, a view which conceives of possible worlds as complete and consistent sets of propositions. The theory posits that, the existence of at least some possible worlds ontologically depends on what actually exists. This is because singular propositions about contingent individuals also exist contingently. Since modal claims are analyzed in terms of possible worlds, Aristotelian actualism entails that some modal truths are themselves contingent. However, this view faces a serious problem. If an individual x does not exist, then there are no singular propositions about x, including the proposition [x does not exist]. But if that is the case, then [x does not exist] is not true when x does not exist—which is absurd. In this paper, I show that the Aristotelian actualist can solve this problem by introducing two senses of truth with respect to possible worlds: truth in a world and truth at a world. Some have argued that this distinction is not substantive, since the notion of truth at a world is not meaningful and substantive. The aim of this paper is to show that this notion is indeed substantive. I support this claim by demonstrating the indispensability of the notion of truth at a world for explaining several key features of possible worlds (and more broadly, of modality) as understood by Aristotelian actualism.

According to strong pluralism, objects distinct by virtue of their modal properties can coincide. The most common objection towards such view invokes the so-called Grounding Problem according to which the strong pluralist needs to explain what the grounds are for supposed modal differences between the coincidents. As recognized in the literature, the failure to provide an answer to the Grounding Problem critically undermines the plausibility of strong pluralism. Moreover, there are strong reasons to believe that strong pluralists cannot provide an explanation of the Grounding Problem. In this paper, we argue that strong pluralism can be motivated independently of the successful answer to the Grounding Problem. In order to achieve that aim, we provide a haecceitistic interpretation of strong pluralism according to which strong pluralism should be read as a position committed to the existence of primitive individuals, i.e., the individuals that have their criteria of individuation independently of their qualitative profiles. That said, we do not aim at defending haecceitism. Instead, our aim is rather modest: we want to provide a new way for the strong pluralist to supplement his view to make it more watertight.

According to actualism about possible worlds everything that exists is actual. Possible worlds and individuals are actually existing abstract parts of the actual world. Aristotelian actualism is a view that there are only actual individuals but no possible ones, nor their individual abstract representatives. Because of that, our actualist account of modality should differ depending on whether it concerns actual individuals or possible ones. The main goal of the dissertation is to develop a metaphysical framework for Aristotelian actualism. Chapter 1 explains basic issues associated with the possible world approach to modality. I overview modal realist and actualist views on possible worlds and explain why I support the actualist approach. Subsequently, I introduce a distinction between Platonic and Aristotelian actualism, and discuss some semantic issues associated with actualism as such. In Chapter 2 I argue that Aristotelian actualism, modeled on linguistic ersatzism, is preferable over its Platonic counterpart. Subsequently, I propose a metaphysical framework for Aristotelian ersatzism which is based on a claim that our modal concepts work differently for actual and possible individuals. In order to explain that claim I introduce three specific differences concerning modal features of actual and possible individuals: (a) Representational Difference, according to which actual and possible individuals are represented differently by possible worlds; (b) Metaphysical Difference, according to which actual and possible individuals are represented by possible worlds as having different metaphysical nature; (c) Modal Difference, which says while there are singular and contingent possibilities involving actual individuals, all possibilities about possible individuals are general and necessary. I propose to interpret those differences in terms of the doctrines of haecceitism, antihaecceitism and existentialism. There is however no consensus on how those views should be characterized. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 focus on providing a precise characterization of those doctrines. Chapter 3 focuses on the doctrines of modal haecceitism and antihaecceitism, which I view as opposite accounts of how possible worlds represent possibilities. According to modal haecceitism what possible worlds say about particular individuals does not supervene on what they say qualitatively. Modal antihaecceitism is a denial of such a claim. Chapter 4 concerns metaphysical haecceitism and antihaecceitism, which I take to be alternative accounts of the fundamental structure of reality. For the metaphysical haecceitist reality contains irreducible singular facts, while for the metaphysical antihaecceitist reality is purely qualitative and general. Chapter 5 focuses on an argument between existentialists and antiexistentialists. Existentialists claim that there are contingent singular propositions, while antiexistentialists deny that. I defend existentialism against antiexistentialist counterarguments, as well as criticize some of the antiexistentialist accounts of singular propositions modeled on the notion of individual essence. In Chapter 6, by appealing to the results of investigations conducted in Chapters 3, 4 and 5, I reconsider Representational, Metaphysical and Modal Differences. According to a view that I propose: (a) Representational Difference entails (extreme) modal haecceitism for actual individuals but (extreme) modal antihaecceitism for possible individuals; (b) Metaphysical Difference entails metaphysical haecceitism (individualism) for actual individuals, but metaphysical antihaecceitism (generalism) for possible individuals; finally (c) Modal Difference entails existentialism: while there are singular and contingent possibilities involving actual individuals, all possibilities about possible individuals are general and necessary. In Chapter 6, I also explain the implications of those views for the various issues, including transworld identity, essentialism, or the modal status of modal space. Lastly, Chapter 7 overviews some semantic and metaphysical applications of Aristotelian ersatzism. I explain how it manages to accommodate Kripkean semantics and how it is able to account for the possibilities of indiscernibles, alien individuals and iterated modalities. I also address some possible objections to my proposal, including an issue of implicit representation and the Humphrey objection.

According to grounding necessitarianism if some facts ground another fact, then the obtaining of the former necessitates the latter. Proponents of grounding contingentism argue against this claim, stating that it is possible for the former facts to obtain without necessitating the latter. In this article I discuss a recent argument from restricted accidental generalisations provided by contingentists that advances such possibility. I argue that grounding necessitarianism can be defended against it. To achieve this aim, I postulate a relationship between grounding and essence by introducing a notion of individual essences understood as a set of essential properties that individuate its bearer. According to a proposed view grounding holds in virtue of identities of its relata, which are in turn determined by their respective individual essences. From there I claim that if grounding holds in virtue of the individual essences of its relata, then it is possible to resist the objection from restricted accidental generalisations and maintain a view that grounds necessitates what is grounded.

The paper is a survey of contemporary quidditism, understood as two interrelated metaphysicalpositions — recombinatorial quidditism, which is an account of the nature of possibilities, andindividuation quidditism, which is concerned with the problem of how to individuate properties.I have three aims: to examine the commitments and consequences of both views, to investigatethe relationships between them, and to sketch the logic of the dispute between structuralism andquidditism. I explain how these views relate to Ramseyan humility, according to which we cannotknow the fundamental structure of the world.

According to strong pluralism, objects distinct by virtue of their modal properties can coincide. The most common objection towards such view invokes the so-called Grounding Problem according to which the strong pluralist needs to explain what the grounds are for supposed modal differences between the coincidents. As recognized in the literature, the failure to provide an answer to the Grounding Problem critically undermines the plausibility of strong pluralism. Moreover, there are strong reasons to believe that strong pluralists cannot provide an explanation of the Grounding Problem. In this paper, we argue that strong pluralism can be motivated independently of the successful answer to the Grounding Problem. In order to achieve that aim, we provide a haecceitistic interpretation of strong pluralism according to which strong pluralism should be read as a position committed to the existence of primitive individuals, i.e., the individuals that have their criteria of individuation independently of their qualitative profiles. That said, we do not aim at defending haecceitism. Instead, our aim is rather modest: we want to provide a new way for the strong pluralist to supplement his view to make it more watertight.

In this article I defend a view according to which facts that express metaphysical grounding are grounded in essences of properties involved into a given grounding relationship. To justify this view, first, I present some reasons for a claim that metaphysical grounding is grounded. In the next step I discuss two theories that explain what are the grounds for grounding: a theory that involves a notion of a superinternal relation and a theory that uses a notion of essences of properties. I argue that later theory is preferable over the former.

A standard contemporary formulation of essentialism defines essential properties with a help of a concept of possible worlds. It is often argued that in order to use possible worlds effectively, facts about transworld identity of individuals need to be determined. In this paper I discuss how essentialist might attempt the issue of transworld identity of individuals. Specifically, I analyze a connection between essentialism and the two theories that explain the transworld identity issue, that is, haecceitism and antihaecceitism. I provide a detailed analysis of different variants of antihaecceitism and argue, that all of them are incompatible with basic intuitions that stay behind essentialism. In contrast to that, I defend a position that essentialism ought to be combined with some form of haecceitism. In the remainder of this paper I provide the two ways through which essentialist might be a haecceitist.

Istnieje spór w obrębie filozofii sięgający już starożytności i polemiki Platona z Sofistami, dotyczący ugruntowania metafizyki jako dziedziny autonomicznej, która byłaby zdolna do badania swoistych elementów rzeczywistości, przysługujących tylko i wyłącznie metafizyce. We wstępnych rozważaniach przedstawiamy sposób, w jaki ten spór można rozumieć oraz jak można go rozwiązać. Tezą metafilozoficzną naszych analiz będzie stwierdzenie, że w celu ugruntowania metafizyki musimy wskazać na swoiste doświadczenie, które mogłoby zapewnić bezpośredni dostęp poznawczy do abstrakcyjnego przedmiotu metafizyki. W niniejszych badaniach, rolę tego doświadczenia będzie pełnić intuicja, którą utożsamiamy z poznaniem apriorycznym – ujmowanym jednak nie jako poznanie pojęciowe bądź dedukcyjne – lecz jako poznanie naoczne, które (używając języka fenomenologii) źródłowo (materialnie) prezentuje nam swoistą sferę przedmiotową. By lepiej zrozumieć zjawisko intuitywnego poznania do którego bardzo często filozofowie implicite się odnosili (rzadziej zaś wprost) zrekonstruujemy stanowisko E. Chudnoffa. W trakcie rekonstrukcji skupimy się na najistotniejszych cechach poznania intuitywnego, które będą kluczem zarówno do zrozumienia wielości tradycyjnych już odniesień i niejawnych odwoływań do intuicji, jak i sposobem poprzez który możliwe stanie się ustalenie warunków możliwości ugruntowania metafizyki jako dziedziny autonomicznego badania rzeczywistości.

W artykule rozważana jest koncepcja nagiego substratu w kontekście problemu indywiduacji. Głównym celem tekstu jest obrona teorii nagiego substratu (TNS) przed klasycznymi oraz współczesnymi zarzutami. Tok rozważań jest następujący: Autor we wstępie definiuje problem jednostkowienia i systematyzuje obecną dyskusję nad tym zagadnieniem. Następnie skupia się na porównaniu teorii wiązki i teorii nagiego substratu, ujętych jako alternatywne wyjaśnienia jednostkowości przedmiotów. Celem porównania dwóch teorii jest przedstawienie motywacji stojących za przyjęciem TNS. Głównym elementem tekstu jest punkt 2, w którym analizuje podstawowe założenia TNS oraz odpiera wytaczane wobec niej zarzuty. Autor wykazuje, że warunkiem możliwości przezwyciężenia zarzutów z przeludnienia i regresu jest modyfikacja TNS i postulat teorii identyczności.

It is said that transcendental phenomenology faces an unavoidable aporia, according to which it is perfectly justified to accept the claim that the transcendental ego constitutes the sense of all external being, including other subjects, as well as the claim that other subjects constitute the sense of all external objects, since they are a community of transcendental egos. The essence of the aporia is that it is impossible to accept both of these claims if one accepts the conceptual schema of transcendental phenomenology. In the article, I present an interpretation of transcendental phenomenology which allows one to avoid such consequences. Firstly, the static theory of intersubjectivity presented in Ideas of Pure Phenomenology and Carthesian Meditations is reconstructed and analyzed. Attention is devoted to the issues of phenomenological reduction and constitution of sense. Afterwards, it is argued that one should distinguish two kinds of constitutive processes: one understood as an activity of the sole transcendental ego (self), and the second one as an activity of the community of transcendental egos. It is claimed that both processes are mutually connected. Moreover, it seems that the second kind of constitution is metaphysically prior then the former one. This claim will allow one to overcome solipsistic interpretations of transcendental phenomenology and to overcome the aporia presented