Most philosophers accept Necessity of Actuality: whenever ‘actually p' is true, it is true with metaphysical necessity. The logic that results from rejecting this principle has recently been studied by Glazier and Kramer (2024); the present paper develops its philosophical foundations. Although Necessity of Actuality may seem to be required by actuality's role in comparing what is with what might have been, I argue that the principle is false and that such comparisons are in good standing even w…
Read moreMost philosophers accept Necessity of Actuality: whenever ‘actually p' is true, it is true with metaphysical necessity. The logic that results from rejecting this principle has recently been studied by Glazier and Kramer (2024); the present paper develops its philosophical foundations. Although Necessity of Actuality may seem to be required by actuality's role in comparing what is with what might have been, I argue that the principle is false and that such comparisons are in good standing even without the principle. The rejection of Necessity of Actuality reopens the following question: for which p is ‘actually p’ metaphysically possible? I propose an answer that appeals to the idea that actuality has an essence, and I explore some hypotheses about what this essence might be.
