Martin Vacek

This volume presents a daring metaphysical thesis: that the divine is an explosive entity whose existence entails every proposition, every state of affairs, and every possibility—even impossibility. Bold, provocative, and deeply philosophical, this groundbreaking work explores the implications of a being for which everything is the case. Across nine chapters, Martin Vacek develops a fully realist account of divinity that challenges conventional boundaries of theology and metaphysics. It is an invitation to further inquiry, challenging readers to think radically, question deeply, and engage with philosophy’s most audacious speculations.

In this article, I argue that the nature question and the extent question in the metaphysics of modality (Divers 2013) have broader philosophical implications. To support this claim, I first analyse the distinction between separatism and non-separatism in general, with a particular focus on modal separatism and modal non-separatism. My primary aim is to demonstrate that non-separatism is methodologically more viable. This is because, when considered together, the two questions reveal a significant—if not indispensable—phenomenon underlying the philosophical debate. Finally, I extend the discussion to controversial theories in philosophy, highlighting how the same dialectic emerges in the context of impossibility.

In this chapter, I will discuss open worlds. One extreme situation that impossible worlds represent is one that is not closed under any non-trivial i-principle. We call them open worlds. In contrast to inconsistent worlds, the idea of open worlds is motivated by the thought that no L-M principle is general enough to close impossible worlds. Thus, impossible worlds are worlds that are not closed under any L-M entailment. Although defining impossibility as openness is too liberal, thinking about impossible worlds as open worlds is a natural route to take, even when one is modal realist.

The book examines the notion of impossible worlds. Although the notion of an impossible world is not novel, several misunderstandings and misrepresentations have resulted in philosophical confusion. To avoid such confusion, the analysis here differentiates between the logical, semantic, epistemological, and metaphysical roles of impossible worlds. The book's central hypothesis is that an understandable taxonomy of extreme positions about impossible worlds is required; it is not easy to hold the middle ground without taking the extreme positions seriously. These positions are compared in order to draw important lessons for logic, epistemology, and metaphysics. The Extent of Impossibility is essential reading for scholars in philosophy and especially for scholars and researchers focusing on metaphysics, logic and epistemology.

Nolan (2014) successfully predicted a hyperintensional revolution in metaphysics and argued that hyperintensionality is not restricted to representations. However, it seems that one of the most promising candidates for non-representational hyperintensionality has not yet been considered as such: art. We argue that art can provide a rather strong case for non-representational hyperintensionality. One reason for this is that the hyperintensionality of art cannot be captured via a representational kind of hyperintensionality.

his essay is about the incredulous stare and its persistent role in the history of philosophy. This silent yet expressive gesture, often signaling disbelief or skepticism, serves as a kind of philosophical punctuation—a non-verbal response to ideas that challenge conventional thinking. From ancient dialogues to modern philosophical debates, the incredulous stare embodies the tension between accepted norms and provocative thought, prompting both parties in a philosophical debate to reassess their assumptions. The incredulous stare, while often seen as resistance to certain theories, is not a decisive argument against them. Rather, I argue that it is a marker of deeper philosophical debates.

In this paper, I list various kinds of ‘plurality’ in philosophical investigations. By plurality, I mean a plurality of methodological criteria which we apply to philosophical phenomena and which are very often incompatible with each other. Any philosophical phenomenon can be approached from different methodological viewpoints and result in utterly different ontological and ideological commitments. In other words, I assume that one philosophical problem can have different solutions which depend on different methodological and theoretical presuppositions. Instead of considering this feature of philosophical theories as a problem, I take this plurality as a natural meta-philosophical result. As an example, I consider impossible phenomena and ways of treating them systematically.

Actual facts abound and actual propositions are true because there is a world, the actual world, that the propositions correctly describe. Possibilities abound as well. The actual world reveals what there is, but it is far from clear that it also reveals what there might be. Philosophers have been aware of this limitation and have introduced the notion of a possible world. Finally, impossibilities abound because it turned out that possibilities do not exhaust the modal space as a whole. Beside the actual facts, and facts about the possible, there are facts about what is impossible. In order to explain this, philosophers have introduced the notion of an impossible world. This article is about impossible worlds. First, there is a presentation of the motivations for postulating impossible worlds as a tool for analysing impossible phenomena. This apparatus seems to deliver great advances in modal logic and semantics, but at the same time it gives rise to metaphysical issues concerning the nature of impossible worlds. Discourse about impossible worlds is explained in Sections 2 and 3. Section 4 provides an overview of the theories in discussion in the academic literature, and Section 5 summarises the drawbacks of those theories. Section 6 takes a closer look at the logical structure of impossible worlds, and Section 7 discusses the connection between impossible worlds and hyperintensionality.

Theories of possible worlds abound. Since the introduction of modal logic, the term of a possible world, and the very nature of an entity denoted by the term, have stood on the top of metaphysical inquiries. A possible world, roughly speaking, is a complete way things could have been. On the face of it, whatever is possible takes place in some possible world, and whatever is not possible, does not. The aim of the present book is to argue that even impossible things happen. By taking David Lewis’s Modal Realism (henceforth as “MR”) seriously, I claim that besides infinitely many concrete ways things could have been, there exist ways things could not have been. I call them concrete impossible worlds. In Chapter I, I outline Lewis’s well-defined conception of philosophical analysis. I present its structure, aims, methodology and criteria for success. Besides the virtues of the Lewisian conception, I point out several limitations the theory has and offer very simple solution: the admission of concrete impossible worlds. In Chapter II, I present a version of an epistemological objection against MR and a positive account in favour of Modal Fictionalism (henceforth as “MF”). I then present the puzzle in this matter and attempt to generalise my point. 9 Introduction Chapter III demonstrates how flexible Lewis’s theory is. I consider a putative impossibility of there being island universes – spatiotemporally disjoint spacetimes – and show what a proponent of modal realism can do in order to account for it. I present three possible moves: a revision of our pre-theoretical opinions, a modification of our definitions and, finally, an ex- tension of our metaphysical commitments. I consider two ersatz theories of impossible worlds in Chapter IV. In particular, I scrutinize Franz Berto’s and Edwin Mares’s (hybrid) theories of MR. Although I admit that the theories radically extend the scope of applications of MR without extending its metaphysical commitments, the approaches do have some limits. Finally, in Chapter V, I present Extended Modal Realism (henceforth EMR), a theory according to which the best way to go in order to account for impossible phenomena is to ex- tend our metaphysical base by genuine impossibilia. I try to (at least) weaken, if not meet, the crucial objections to the proposal. Namely, I challenge the proclaimed universality of classical logic and, subsequently, motivate certain kind of paraconsistent approach to modal reality. Although the consequences are very hard to swallow, I argue that it is because of the fact that we are unsure of our pre-theoretical opinions concerning the impossible.

Possible-worlds semantics proved itself as a strong tool in analysing the statements of actuality, possibility, contingency and necessity. But impossible phenomena go beyond the expressive power of the apparatus. The proponents of possible-worlds apparatus thus owe us at least three stories. The first one is the story about ontological nature of possible worlds, the second one is the story about the theoretical role such entities play and the third one is the story about the impossible. Modal Realism (MR) provides us with a positive story regarding the first and the second, but denies impossible worlds. Extended Modal Realism (EMR) adds a positive story about the third point too. This book is an attempt to paraphrase extended modal realism in different metaphysical frameworks. In Chapter I, I outline the theory of modal realism, its systematic account of modality and its ontological commitments. I also motivate an impossible-worlds discourse as well as a systematic appeal of extending the picture beyond the possible. I then propose several definitions of the concept of ‘impossible world’ (or impossible possible world). Finally, I discuss a particular metaphysics behind the concept - extended modal realism. Chapter II considers the epistemological worry associated with (MR) and (EMR) and concludes that although the worry is justified, there can be epistemological justification of the theory. Next, I outline the so-called indispensability argument for the legitimacy of mathematical Platonism. Finally, I argue that the argument, if accepted, can be applied to metaphysics in general, to the existence of concrete possibilia (and impossibilia) in particular. Chapter III focuses on the analysis of (EMR). To be more precise, I present a so-called advanced modalizing problem which seems to be infecting every genuinely realistic theory of modality. In this chapter, I propose a way of treating extraordinary modal claims by means of plurality of logical spaces. The next three chapters provide different ways of understanding (EMR). Namely, Chapter IV develops and defends Extended Modal Dimensionalism (EMD). (EMD) is realism about spaces, times and worlds—metaphysical indices that make objects spatial, temporal and modal, respectively. Metaphysical indices play the role of alethic relativisers, i.e. items to which matters of truth are relativized. The chapter examines several arguments against modal dimensionalism and shows that it offers a feasible way to understand (EMR). Chapter V offers a structural approach to possible and impossible worlds: Extended Modal Structuralism (EMS). In particular, I consider whether it makes sense to think of logical models in isolation from the concrete world but without their being divorced from all spatiotemporal totalities. The metaphysics of structure developed in this chapter assumes that structural properties of possible and impossible worlds are primitive and objective. However, I provide some characterisations of their logical and metaphysical behaviour, as well as guidelines for talking about them. Finally, Chapter VI proposes yet another metaphysical framework of hybrid modal realism. I present theories of (MR), (EMR) and modal fictionalism respectively, their advantages and drawbacks. Finally, I propose a so-called hybrid view. Roughly, the view is that one might be a modal realist when it comes to possibilia, but turn into fictionalism regarding impossibilia. The approach is dubbed Extended Modal Fictionalism (EMF) a version of fictionalism according to which claims made within a certain discourse are better to be understood as a sort of ‘fiction’, rather than as a literal truth.

In this paper, I defend modal dimensionalism against the objection that it is ontologically and ideologically heavy. First, I briefly outline the theory and the objection against it. The objection relies on the widely accepted view that ontological and ideological parsimony are operational criteria when comparing metaphysical theories. Second, I outline the conventional distinction between ontology and ideology in the metaphysical tradition. Third, I challenge a particular kind of parsimony: reduction by identification. Fourth, even if reduction by identification is accepted, I show that theories that pursue this often minimize differences, and that such minimization paves the way to epistemic underdetermination. Finally, I demonstrate that some theories in modal metaphysics also suffer from difference minimization and should thus not be measured on the ontology/ideology scale.