Nicola Ciprotti

Beall and Restall 2000; 2001; 2006 advocate a comprehensive pluralist approach to logic, which they call Logical Pluralism, according to which there is not one true logic but many equally acceptable logical systems. They maintain that Logical Pluralism is compatible with monism about metaphysical modality, according to which there is just one correct logic of metaphysical modality. Wyatt 2004 contends that Logical Pluralism is incompatible with monism about metaphysical modality. We first suggest that if Wyatt were right, Logical Pluralism would be strongly implausible because it would get upside down a dependence relation that holds between metaphysics and logic of modality. We then argue that Logical Pluralism is prima facie compatible with monism about metaphysical modality

This paper addresses a specific issue inherent to David Lewis’s conception of possible worlds, namely whether or not they are liable to being limited in size. The paper purports to show that, if a certain argument against unlimited worlds’ size is valid, then the way of countering it by means of positing an upper limit to size (as Lewis himself and John Divers have suggested) leads to a troublesome distortion of some modal phenomena, such as de re ascriptions of properties. Even if somewhat disagreeing with Lewis’s favoured solution of the topic at issue, it must be remarked that what follows should not be intended either as a defence or as an attack on Lewis’s overall modal ontology.

The paper purports to show that truth-atemporalism, the thesis that truth is timeless, is incompatible with power to do otherwise. Since a parallel and simpler argument can be run to the effect that truth-omnitemporalism, the thesis that truth is sempiternal, is incompatible with power to do otherwise, our conclusion achieves greater generality, and the possible shift from the claim that truth is omnitemporal to the claim that it is atemporal becomes useless for the purpose to resist it. On the other hand, our argument for the conclusion that both Atemporalism and Omnitemporalism are incompatible with power to do otherwise will be shown independent of the debated assumption that the past is inalterable. So our argument goes through independently of whether Ockhamists are right in insisting that the soft facts about the past are alterable.

Alvin Plantinga defends Theological Compatibilism (TC) and Essential- ism about property possession (E). TC is the claim that human freedom to act otherwise and God’s essential omniscience are compatible, while E is the claim that every individual entity whatsoever has a modal profile consisting in having both essential and accidental properties. I purport to show that, if E is assumed in the argument for TC, then the latter leads to a very puzzling upshot. I also intend to show that, even if TC is suitably fixed in order to avoid that upshot, TC is still unconvincing in that it merges into one the de re and the de dicto rendering of ‘human freedom to act otherwise’; I end up by briefly sketching why the two renderings should instead be kept well apart

The paper is intended to provide a full-scale defence of the infamous Barcan Formulae. Not only do I put forth some arguments, both semantic and metaphysical, against recent criticism; I also take pains at supplying some rationale in favour of the formal semantics underlying the Formulae, namely Possibilist quantification. Such a task is carried out through an argument for Compositional Nihilism, according to which nothing but mereological simples ever exists, and consequently through an informal sketch of the metaphysics of possible worlds grounded upon Compositional Nihilism. The paper closes by surveying the main reasons why the account championed here isn’t defective with respect to other possibilist accounts of existence and modality presently on stage

In the free will-problem a lively debate over the correctness of interpretino “An agent could have acted otherwise” as “An agent would have acted otherwise, if she had chosen or decide or tried to” took place within the Fifties, Sixties and Seventies, especially as a result of John Austin’s paper Ifs and Cans , directed mainly against the conditional analysis of could first advanced by George Moore in his Ethics . What I aim to show is that the Austinian attack on the Moorean conditional analysis rests on the mistake of misrepresenting Moore’s position on this subject: whether or not conditional analysis is defective, Austin’s criticism does not probably bear on the question as much as it seemed it did