There is a familiar debate between Russell and Strawson concerning bivalence and ‘the present King of France’. According to the Strawsonian view, ‘The present King of France is bald’ is neither true nor false, whereas, on the Russellian view, that proposition is simply false. In this paper, I develop what I take to be a crucial connection between this debate and a different domain where bivalence has been at stake: future contingents. On the familiar ‘Aristotelian’ view, future contingent propositions are (...) neither true nor false. However, I argue that, just as there is a Russellian alternative to the Strawsonian view concerning ‘the present King of France’, according to which the relevant class of propositions all turn out false, so there is a Russellian alternative to the Aristotelian view, according to which future contingents all turn out false, not neither true nor false. The result: contrary to millennia of philosophical tradition, we can be open futurists without denying bivalence. (shrink)

At least since Aristotle’s famous 'sea-battle' passages in On Interpretation 9, some substantial minority of philosophers has been attracted to the doctrine of the open future--the doctrine that future contingent statements are not true. But, prima facie, such views seem inconsistent with the following intuition: if something has happened, then (looking back) it was the case that it would happen. How can it be that, looking forwards, it isn’t true that there will be a sea battle, while also being true (...) that, looking backwards, it was the case that there would be a sea battle? This tension forms, in large part, what might be called the problem of future contingents. A dominant trend in temporal logic and semantic theorizing about future contingents seeks to validate both intuitions. Theorists in this tradition--including some interpretations of Aristotle, but paradigmatically, Thomason (1970), as well as more recent developments in Belnap, et. al (2001) and MacFarlane (2003, 2014)--have argued that the apparent tension between the intuitions is in fact merely apparent. In short, such theorists seek to maintain both of the following two theses: (i) the open future: Future contingents are not true, and (ii) retro-closure: From the fact that something is true, it follows that it was the case that it would be true. It is well-known that reflection on the problem of future contingents has in many ways been inspired by importantly parallel issues regarding divine foreknowledge and indeterminism. In this paper, we take up this perspective, and ask what accepting both the open future and retro-closure predicts about omniscience. When we theorize about a perfect knower, we are theorizing about what an ideal agent ought to believe. Our contention is that there isn’t an acceptable view of ideally rational belief given the assumptions of the open future and retro-closure, and thus this casts doubt on the conjunction of those assumptions. (shrink)

According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (‘PSR’), every fact has an explanation for why it obtains. If the PSR is true, there must be a sufficient reason for why God chose to create our world. But a sufficient reason for God’s choice plausibly necessitates that choice. It thus seems that God could not have done otherwise, and that our world exists necessarily. We therefore appear forced to pick between the PSR, and the contingency of creation and divine choice. (...) I show that a third option remains open, and thus that it is possible to preserve the contingency of creation and divine choice even while endorsing the PSR. My solution depends on the coherence of a restricted modal realism. On this modal realism, there is more than one possible morally optimal created world, and for each such world there is an existing possibility in which God creates that world. (shrink)

Is the cultural evolution of morality fairly contingent? Could cultural evolution have easily led humans to moral norms and judgments that are mostly false by our present lights? If so, does it matter philosophically? Yes, or so we argue. We empirically motivate the contingency of cultural evolution and show that it makes two major philosophical contributions. First, it shows that moral objectivists cannot explain the reliability of our moral judgments and thus strengthens moral debunking arguments. Second, it shows that (...) the reliability of our moral judgments is evidence for theism over metaphysical naturalism. (shrink)

It is widely held that physicalism is incompatible with the metaphysical possibility of zombies, i.e. beings physically just like us yet lacking in phenomenal consciousness. e present paper argues that this orthodoxy is mistaken. As against the received wisdom, physicalism is perfectly compatible with the possibility of zom-bies and zombie-worlds. Arguments from the possibility of zombies to the falsity of physicalism do not, therefore, succeed. To establish this, the paper develops a form of physicalism on which the phenomenal facts are (...) metaphysically grounded in the basic physical facts in accordance with metaphysically contingent grounding laws. It also draws out some important morals for the contemporary mind-body debate. (shrink)

This paper first argues that we can bring out a tension between the following three popular doctrines: (i) the canonical reduction of metaphysical modality to essence, due to Fine, (ii) contingentism, which says that possibly something could have failed to be something, and (iii) the doctrine that metaphysical modality obeys the modal logic S5. After presenting two such arguments (one from the theorems of S4 and another from the theorems of B), I turn to exploring various conclusions we might draw (...) in light of these results, and argue that none comes cost free. In the course of laying out possible responses to my arguments, we'll have a chance to evaluate various doctrines about the interplay between contingency and essence, as well as develop some alternative reductions of metaphysical modality to essence. I don't decisively come down in favor of one response over the others, though I say some things that point towards the conclusion that essence has no role to play in reducing metaphysical modality. (shrink)

Kripke maintains that one who stipulatively introduces the term ' one meter' as a rigid designator for the length of a certain stick s at time t is in a position to know a priori that if s exists at t then the length of s at t is one meter. Some (e.g., Soames 2003) have objected to this alleged instance of the contingent a priori on the grounds that the stipulator's knowledge would have to be based in part on (...) substantive metalinguistic knowledge. I examine Soames's argument for the a posteriority of the relevant metalinguistic knowledge, and I argue that its main premise is false. (shrink)

Excerpt: In this essay I explore the nature of the necessity of historical development in Nietzsche’s genealogy of Judeo-Christian moral values. I argue that the progression of moral stages in Nietzsche’s study is ordered in such a way that the failure of each stage is logically and structurally necessary, that each failure structures the resultant system or paradigm, but that the historical manifestation of moral paradigms coinciding with predicted or projected theoretical structures is contingent upon a multitude of other historical (...) factors. Therefore, the systematic internal failures of moral stages allow for, but do not cause, successive events. (shrink)

This paper attempts to show that Scott Soames has not given us an example of a contingent a priori truth. (What it probably shows is how confused I am on this topic.).

This paper argues that contingency, rather than natural selection, is the primary generator of evolutionary possibility. While natural selection explains the differential survival of traits, it presupposes the existence of variation and therefore cannot account for the origin or structure of the evolutionary possibility space. I analyze the role of neutral traits, bundled traits, and accumulated variation to show that contingency expands the domain of potential evolutionary outcomes independently of adaptive pressures. Using the example of beak variation in (...) birds, I demonstrate that traits often arise without selective relevance and become advantageous only after environmental change. I propose a two stage model in which contingency creates the set of available traits and natural selection filters among them. This framework offers a more complete philosophical account of evolution, emphasizing historical path dependence and the non inevitability of biological outcomes. (shrink)

Invited discussion paper on Patrick Todd's book, _The Open Future: Why Future Contingents Are All False_ (Oxford, 2021).

abstract: Leibniz holds that there are no two perfectly similar things, a doctrine he calls the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (the PII). What is his attitude toward its modal status? Most commentators hold that the principle is best understood as a necessary truth because it is allegedly entailed by doctrines such as the conceptual containment theory of truth, the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR), and the denial of purely extrinsic denominations, which are arguably regarded by Leibniz as (...) necessary truths. In this paper, I argue against this consensus and show that (1) neither the conceptual containment theory of truth, nor the PSR, nor the denial of purely extrinsic denominations give Leibniz a good reason to hold that the PII is necessary; (2) Leibniz says that the PII is contingent in the correspondence with Clarke and not for dialectical reasons; and (3) the argument that Leibniz gives for the PII in §21 of his Fifth Letter to Clarke has been misunderstood; properly interpreted, it gives Leibniz a cogent argument rooted in some of his most important doctrines for the conclusion that the PII is a contingent truth. (shrink)

I argue that you can have a priori knowledge of propositions that neither are nor appear necessarily true. You can know a priori contingent propositions that you recognize as such. This overturns a standard view in contemporary epistemology and the traditional view of the a priori, which restrict a priori knowledge to necessary truths, or at least to truths that appear necessary.

This paper argues that the problem of how to act in the face of radical contingency is of central importance in Musil’s novel and intimately connected to what Musil calls the sense of possibility. There is a variety of different strategies by which individuals, and the state of Kakania as a whole, deal with contingency, and they all involve a claim to a kind of grounding or necessity; for example, the Parallel Campaign is one big attempt to ground (...) Kakania in what can be perceived as a form of metaphysical necessity. With the figure of Ulrich, Musil radicalizes the problem by showing the consequences of viewing even the relationship one has to one’s own self as contingent – the ultimate outcome of which is self-alienation. (shrink)

Various philosophers have long since been attracted to the doctrine that future contingent propositions systematically fail to be true—what is sometimes called the doctrine of the open future. However, open futurists have always struggled to articulate how their view interacts with standard principles of classical logic—most notably, with the Law of Excluded Middle. For consider the following two claims: Trump will be impeached tomorrow; Trump will not be impeached tomorrow. According to the kind of open futurist at issue, both of (...) these claims may well fail to be true. According to many, however, the disjunction of these claims can be represented as p ∨ ~p—that is, as an instance of LEM. In this essay, however, I wish to defend the view that the disjunction these claims cannot be represented as an instance of p ∨ ~p. And this is for the following reason: the latter claim is not, in fact, the strict negation of the former. More particularly, there is an important semantic distinction between the strict negation of the first claim [~] and the latter claim. However, the viability of this approach has been denied by Thomason, and more recently by MacFarlane and Cariani and Santorio, the latter of whom call the denial of the given semantic distinction “scopelessness”. According to these authors, that is, will is “scopeless” with respect to negation; whereas there is perhaps a syntactic distinction between ‘~Will p’ and ‘Will ~p’, there is no corresponding semantic distinction. And if this is so, the approach in question fails. In this paper, then, I criticize the claim that will is “scopeless” with respect to negation. I argue that will is a so-called “neg-raising” predicate—and that, in this light, we can see that the requisite scope distinctions aren’t missing, but are simply being masked. The result: a under-appreciated solution to the problem of future contingents that sees and as contraries, not contradictories. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question whether future contingents are knowable, that is, whether one can know that things will go a certain way even though it is possible that things will not go that way. First I will consider a long-established view that implies a negative answer, and draw attention to some endemic problems that affect its credibility. Then I will sketch an alternative line of thought that prompts a positive answer: future contingents are knowable, although our epistemic access of (...) them is limited in some important respects. (shrink)

This paper defends the traditional view that the laws of nature are contingent, or, if some of them are necessary, this is due to analytic principles for the individuation of the law-governed properties. Fundamentally, I argue that the supposed explanatory purposes served by taking the laws to be necessary --showing how laws support counterfactuals, how properties are individuated, or how we have knowledge of properties--are in fact undermined by the continued possibility of the imagined scenarios--this time, described neutrally--which seemed to (...) disprove the claim to necessity in the first place. I speculate that this will be true for any proposed necessary a posteriori truths, and is a basis for rejecting their supposed metaphysical significance. (shrink)

The Principle of Sufficient Reason holds that there is a complete explanation for absolutely everything. While historically significant, it has largely fallen from favor among contemporary metaphysicians. In full generality, it is held to have untenable implications. Foremost among these is necessitarianism - the claim that everything actually true is necessarily true. I argue that this is not the case; the argument linking the PSR to necessitarianism relies upon assumptions that rationalists have independent reasons to reject. I close by providing (...) positive reasons to hold that the PSR allows for contingency. There are various models for the structures of facts: models that are all compatible with the PSR, yet are incompatible with one another. If we are to reject the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it is not because it gives rise to necessitarianism. (shrink)

When the necessity of identity (NI) is combined with composition as identity (CAI), the contingency of composition (CC) is at risk. In the extant literature, either NI is seen as the basis for a refutation of CAI or CAI is associated with a theory of modality, such that: either NI is renounced (if counterpart theory is adopted); or CC is renounced (if the theory of modal parts is adopted). In this paper, we investigate the prospects of a new variety (...) of CAI, which aims to preserve both NI and CC. This new variety of CAI (CCAI, contingent composition as identity) is the quite natural product of the attempt to make sense of CAI on the background of a broadly Kripkean view of modality, such that one and the same entity is allowed to exist at more than one possible world. CCAI introduces a world-relative kind of identity, which is different from standard identity, and claims that composition is this kind of world-relative identity. CCAI manages to preserve NI and CC. We compare CCAI with Gibbard’s and Gallois’ doctrines of contingent identity and we show that CCAI can be sensibly interpreted as a form of Weak CAI, that is of the thesis that composition is not standard identity, yet is significantly similar to it. (shrink)

This paper deals with the problem of future contingents, and focuses on two classical logical principles, excluded middle and bivalence. One may think that different attitudes are to be adopted towards these two principles in order to solve the problem. According to what seems to be a widely held hypothesis, excluded middle must be accepted while bivalence must be rejected. The paper goes against that line of thought. In the first place, it shows how the rejection of bivalence leads to (...) implausible consequences if excluded middle is accepted. In the second place, it addresses the question of why one should reject bivalence, and finds no satisfactory answer. (shrink)

Ian Hacking’s wide-ranging and penetrating analysis of science contains two well-developed lines of thought. The first emphasizes the contingent history of our inquiries into nature, focusing on the various ways in which our concepts and styles of reasoning evolve through time, how their current application is constrained by the conditions under which they arose, and how they might have evolved differently. The second is the mistrust of the idea that the world contains mind-independent natural kinds, preferring nominalism to ‘inherent structurism’. (...) These two pillars of thought seem at first to be mutually reinforcing: the lack of natural structure can help make sense of scientific variability and revision, while variability and revision provide reason to suspect that natural structure is little more than idealization. In what follows, I argue that these two pillars not only fail to support each other, but in fact conflict. One of them must fall, and it is clear which. (shrink)

Kant’s earliest conception of freedom has usually been understood as building on the compatibilism of Leibniz and Wolff: free action is compatible with the principle of sufficient reason because its occurrence is not absolutely but instead merely hypothetically necessary and hence contingent. But recent scholarship has challenged this consensus. Scholars have made compelling cases not only that Kant, in the Nova dilucidatio of 1755, advocated a freedom without contingency, but also, to the contrary, that he acknowledged freedom to involve (...) a more radical contingency incompatible with the principle of sufficient reason—if not already in the Nova dilucidatio, then at least in the Beweisgrund essay of 1763. But a reexamination of the role the concept ‘contingency’ plays in these two texts confirms the more standard view that the Nova dilucidatio defends a compatibilism in the Leibnizian tradition and that the Beweisgrund essay is at least consistent with this compatibilism. The 1755 Nova dilucidatio addresses an objection to the Leibnizian principle of sufficient reason by Christian August Crusius: actions antecedently determined by grounds would happen with a necessity that would make them “unavoidable” and hence unfree. Kant’s response appeals, at least implicitly, to two different conceptions of contingency. (1) Absolute or in se contingency: the opposite of a free action is excluded not by an essence (and hence does not involve a contradiction) but rather by antecedently determining grounds. Here, Kant draws on Leibniz’s account, as developed by Christian Wolff and Alexander Baumgarten, of an absolute or in se contingency compatible with the principle of sufficient reason. (2) Physical contingency or physical indifference: the opposite of a free action is not excluded by any non-appetitive or physical antecedent determining grounds, i.e., by any determining grounds outside willing and desiring; hence a free action occurs if and only if the agent prefers it. Here, Kant is likely drawing on the account of physical contingency or indifference introduced by Friedrich Wagner and developed by Baumgarten. Finally, the Beweisgrund essay of 1763 attributes yet a third kind of contingency to freedom: (3) free actions appear to be contingent in the sense that they contain the inherent possibility of deviating from the laws of nature that direct everything in creation toward perfection. This “teleo-nomologically contingency” (as we might call it) is neutral on the question of compatibilism: it neither affirms nor denies that the opposite of a free action is excluded by antecedently determining grounds. (shrink)

Todd and Rabern (2021) mount an argument that – contra both Thomason’s (1970) supervaluationism and MacFarlane’s (2014) relativism – an “open future” view is incompatible with the principle they call “Retro-closure”, according to which today’s rain implies that yesterday it was true that it would rain a day later. In a recent piece, MacFarlane replies. This paper has two aims. First, I argue that MacFarlane’s response to Todd and Rabern is unsuccessful on its own terms. Second, I attempt to clarify (...) Todd and Rabern’s overall argument, and explain how MacFarlane’s replies should be construed within the overall dialectic. The intended result: if you want an "open future", then one's best option is a modified Peirceanism (Todd 2021); if one wants Retro-closure, one's best option is one on which there is a determinate "Thin Red Line" (a view sometimes called "Ockhamism"). However, one cannot have what supervaluationism and relativism both promise, viz., a view that preserves both. (shrink)

Grounding contingentism is the doctrine according to which grounds are not guaranteed to necessitate what they ground. In this paper I will argue that the most plausible version of contingentism is incompatible with the idea that the grounding relation is transitive, unless either ‘priority monism’ or ‘contrastivism’ are assumed.

This article presents a semantic analysis of indirect speech reports. The analysis aims to explain a combination of two phenomena. First, there are true utterances of sentences of the form α said that φ which are used to report an utterance u of a sentence wherein φ's content is not u's content. This implies that in uttering a single sentence, one can say several things. Second, when the complements of these reports (and indeed, these reports themselves) are placed in conjunctions, (...) the conjunctions are typically infelicitous. I argue that this combination of phenomena can be explained if speech reports report (perhaps contingent) parts of the contents of the sentences reported. (shrink)

This is a rejoinder of sorts to Marco Ruffino’s critique in his book Contingent /A Priori/ Truths (Springer, Switzerland, 2022) of my own criticism of Saul Kripke’s case for the contingent /a priori/. A distinction is drawn between knowledge concerning the meter stick S that its length is such-and-such and knowledge concerning S’s length that it is such-and-such.

The results from contemporary science, especially the theory of evolution and quantum physics, seem to favor process theology. Moreover, the evil committed by free will leads some theologians to reduce divine action in order to prevent God from being responsible for evil. Thus, among those who defend a particular providence, Molinism finds many followers. This article first argues that contemporary science does not constrain us to deny particular providence. Second, it criticizes the implicitly deterministic character of Molinism. Thirdly, a Thomistic (...) solution is proposed as an alternative which, by means of a different metaphysical approach to cosmic contingency and freedom of will, defends particular providence without reducing divine activity except in personal sins. (shrink)

This paper offers a comparative analysis of Stephen Jay Gould’s historical conception of evolutionary contingency and Jestin Palakal’s structural-modal account of contingency. While Gould emphasises the role of historical accidents, path-dependence, and unpredictability in shaping the history of life, Palakal develops a deeper ontological framework in which contingency functions as the generator of variation—neutral traits, bundled traits, and latent possibilities—that natural selection later filters. The paper argues that the two frameworks are complementary but operate at different explanatory (...) levels: Gould describes the contingent history of evolution, whereas Palakal articulates the structural conditions that make evolutionary processes possible. The analysis demonstrates that Palakal’s theory does not revise or duplicate Gould’s work but instead provides a foundational modal architecture that Gould’s historical narrative presupposes. (shrink)

In this paper I defend the Contingent Spotlight Theory, a theory of modality analogous to the Moving Spotlight Theory in the philosophy of time. My defence of the theory consists in developing responses to three objections that have been raised against it, two of which are due to Lewis (1986). I also argue that the version of the contingent spotlight theory I develop in response to these objections has some advantages over its closest rival, Philip Bricker's (2006, 2008) ‘Leibnizian Realism’.

My access to my mental state is often said to be privileged and peculiar. It is privileged insofar as I am in a secure epistemic position regarding my mental state, and peculiar because I know my mental state by employing a method that is unavailable to other people. I distinguish between two understandings of privilege and peculiarity: one takes our access to be ‘in principle’ privileged and peculiar, and one takes our access to be merely contingently privileged and peculiar. I (...) argue that the latter is much weaker, only holding that at a particular time in the actual world my access to my mental state is privileged and peculiar. I suggest that this weaker understanding is – or should be – endorsed by so-called sceptics of self-knowledge, such as Carruthers and Cassam. I argue that contingent privilege and peculiarity is sufficient to explain our linguistic practice and the value of self-knowledge. (shrink)

Phenomena such as hatred, fanaticism, obsession, nihilism, and systemic collapse are commonly treated as moral failures, psychological pathologies, or brute sociological facts. This paper proposes a unifying structural account of these phenomena based on two minimal primitives required for meaningful systems: valuation (the assignment of importance to states, empirically visible as work expended against entropy) and contingency (the availability of nontrivial alternative possibilities). We introduce a two-dimensional phase space of meaning spanned by valuation and contingency and show that (...) distinct modes of flourishing, drift, stagnation, and pathology occupy well-defined regions of this space. The central result is a structural definition of hate as maximal valuation with collapsed contingency: a high-energy state in which care is intense but the possibility space is rigidly constrained, so only eliminative futures remain admissible. On this account, the opposite of love is not hate but apathy (near-zero valuation), while hate represents a pathological freezing of valuation rather than its absence. We further show that such rigidity is energetically costly and dynamically brittle in a contingent world, explaining the exhaustion, instability, and self-destructive tendencies associated with pathological systems across biological, psychological, and social scales. The account is diagnostic and scale-invariant, offering structural insight rather than moral prescription, therapeutic guidance, or metaphysical commitment. (shrink)

I argue for a novel interpretation of Leibniz’s conception of the kind of contingency that matters for freedom, which I label ‘agential contingency.’ In brief, an agent is free to the extent that she determines herself to do what she judges to be the best of several considered options that she could have brought about had she concluded that these options were best. I use this novel interpretation to make sense of Leibniz’s doctrine that the reasons that explain (...) free actions are merely inclining and not necessitating. (shrink)

The principle of bivalence (PB) states that every declarative sentence is either true or false, and the principle of excluded middle (PEM) states that one member of any contradictory pair must be true. According to the standard interpretation of Int. 9, PB fails for future contingents. Moreover, some standardists believe that PEM fails for pairs of contradictory future contingents, whereas other standardists attempt to rescue PEM by applying the method of supervaluations. I argue that PB and PEM are not suspended (...) and that the method of supervaluations fails to explain how PEM holds. I propose an interpretation of Int. 9 according to which neither PB nor PEM fails. (shrink)

In this paper I address issues related to the problem of future contingents and the metaphysical doctrine of fatalism. Two classical responses to the problem of future contingents are the third truth value view and the all-false view. According to the former, future contingents take a third truth value which goes beyond truth and falsity. According to the latter, they are all false. I here illustrate and discuss two ways to respectively argue for those two views. Both ways are similar (...) in spirit and intimately connected with fatalism, in the sense that they engage with the doctrine of fatalism and accept a large part of a standard fatalistic machinery. (shrink)

The problem of contingent existence is the problem of how an individual’s nonexistence such as Socrates’s nonexistence is possible within the framework of possible worlds, or, equivalently, how a negative existential proposition about Socrates can be true at some world. This paper is concerned with Robert Adams’s celebrated solution that distinguishes two modes of truth at a world: inner and outer. Adams argues that Socrates’s nonexistence is not an inner truth but an outer truth at a world in which he (...) does not exist. However, Adams’s solution faces significant challenges, as his proposed rule for determining outer truths leads to undesirable consequences. For Adams’s solution to be viable, a revised rule is necessary. Iris Einheuser attempts to address this issue by providing an alternative rule, arguing that Adams’s rule is not inevitable. However, this paper argues that Einheuser’s proposal ultimately fails, as it implies the unacceptable conclusion that all entities are necessary existents. (shrink)

This article discusses the status of necessity in an ontology that acknowledges only contingent events and objects, focusing particularly on the relationship between thought and necessity in an ontological framework where thought is seen as a contingent occurrence with a contingent structure. To this end, I closely analyse Deleuze’s criticisms of the Kantian transcendental project and his reworking of the Kantian notion of time and discuss Michael Ardoline's recent work on the relationship between difference and necessity. I make two main (...) claims. The first is that the pure form of time or difference is a transcendental condition for all events and entities (speculative temporalism). The second is that the future is ruled by radical contingency and has the potential to radically transform and destroy everything (enhanced Humeanism). I bring these two facets of Deleuze’s metaphysics of time to address the initial issue of the relationship between necessity and thought. Consequently, I argue that thinking can produce well-grounded necessities, but these well-grounded necessities remain ontologically precarious, as the conditions that sustain them are always subject to potential disruption and destruction in the future. (shrink)

A chapter exploring the relations between humility and the sciences.

Timothy Williamson is known for defending the view that second-order S5 system axiomatized with Barcan Formulae gives us the most sensible doctrine for metaphysical modality. Barcan Formulae require a constant domain of quantification in which absolutely everything is necessary. Among the objects that constitute this ‘everything’ we find contingently non-concrete objects. These objects do not occupy spatiotemporal coordinates and exist just in the logical sense of ‘exist’ defended by Williamson. In this paper, I try to characterize these sui generis objects (...) arguing that the only properties we can use to individuate them are non-qualitative, including some modal properties. This is so because, as I show in the paper, if we try to individuate contingently non-concrete objects using qualitative properties we incur into the predicative reading of expressions like ‘possible X’ rejected by Williamson. (shrink)

This paper introduces Richard Rorty’s notion of the liberal ironist and his vision of a liberal utopia and explores the implications of these for philosophical questions concerning morality, as well as morality in general. Rorty’s assertions of the contingency of language, society and self are explored. Under the contingency of language, the figure of the ironist is defined, and Rorty’s conception of vocabularies is discussed. Under the contingency of society, Rorty’s definition of liberalism, his opposition of literary (...) culture to materialist and metaphysical culture, and his notions concerning utopian politics are discussed. Under the contingency of self, Rorty’s critique of Kantian and his appropriations of Deweyan and Freudian conceptions of morality are presented. Other key factors discussed are Rorty’s theory of the separation of the private and public spheres of life and his ideas concerning cruelty and human solidarity. In this way, a critical analysis of Rorty’s proposed balance between private, ironic doubt and public, liberal social hope is presented and assessed in terms of its merit as a system of thought suited to the needs of post-metaphysical, liberal societies. (shrink)

I show that intuitive and logical considerations do not justify introducing Leibniz’s Law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals in more than a limited form, as applying to atomic formulas. Once this is accepted, it follows that Leibniz’s Law generalises to all formulas of the first-order Predicate Calculus but not to modal formulas. Among other things, identity turns out to be logically contingent.

Leibniz endorses several tenets regarding explanation: (1) causes provide contrastive explanations of their effects, (2) the past and the future can be read from the present, and (3) primitive force and derivative forces drive and explain changes in monadic states. I argue that, contrary to initial appearances, these tenets do not preclude an intelligible conception of contingency in Leibniz’s system. In brief, an agent is free to the extent that she determines herself to do that which she deliberately judges (...) to be the best from several considered options that she could have brought about, had she come to the deliberative conclusion that these options were best. I develop a model which illustrates how Leibnizian agents could have come to different deliberative conclusions, and which thus illustrates how Leibnizian agents could have acted differently. (shrink)

A debate has recently appeared regarding whether non-naturalism is better than other metaethical views at explaining moral progress. I shall take the occasion of this debate to present a novel debunking dilemma for moral non-naturalists, extending Sharon Street's Darwinian one. I will argue that moral progress indicates that our moral attitudes tend to reflect contingent sociocultural and psychological factors. For non-naturalists, there is then either a relation between these factors and the moral facts, non-naturalistically construed, or there is not. If (...) there is no relation, the contingent factors are unlikely to lead to moral knowledge. If there is a relation, they must be likely to lead to non-naturalist-style moral knowledge, but no theoretically virtuous explanation of moral progress is likely to accommodate non-naturalist commitments. It follows that non-naturalist moral realism cannot explain our moral knowledge. I call this a contingentist challenge to non-naturalism. (shrink)

One of the major challenges in the philosophy of religion is theological fatalism—roughly, the claim that divine omniscience is incompatible with free will. In this article, I present new reasons to be skeptical of what I consider to be the strongest argument for theological fatalism. First, I argue that divine foreknowledge is not necessary for an argument against free will if we take into account divine knowledge of contingent a priori truths. Second, I show that this argument can be generalized (...) so that ordinary human knowledge of contingent a priori truths also leads to an argument against free will. This, I believe, results in an absurd conclusion that is unacceptable to both theists and non-theists. But if there is something wrong with this argument, there is something wrong, too, with the argument for theological fatalism. Although there is a range of possible responses, I suggest that the core issue in all cases is a closure principle—specifically, the principle that ‘no choice about’ is closed under entailment (or strict implication). (shrink)

In this article, M. Beatrice Fazi takes up Media Theory’s invitation to engage with Alan Díaz Alva’s analysis of her philosophical work on contingency in computation. The central argument of Fazi’s Contingent Computation: Abstraction, Experience, and Indeterminacy in Computational Aesthetics is that computation can be productive of ontological novelty. This piece revisits that argument in the light of the technological developments that have occurred since 2018, when the book was published. Focusing on generative artificial intelligence (generative AI), the article (...) considers how the concepts of generativity, aesthetics and contingency are tackled in the book and in present-day debates about generative AI systems. (shrink)

A discussion of a view, defended by Robert Adams and Boris Kment, according to which contingent existence requires rejecting many standard principles of propositional modal logic involving iterated modal operators.

Traditional cosmological arguments are often thought to rely fatally on the Principle of Sufficient Reason. This paper develops a contingency argument that does not. We adopt a two-sorted first-order logic with predicates for world-membership and symmetric accessibility between possible worlds. Within this framework, we formulate four axioms, each verified via Mace4 to be consistent and independent both from one another and from the PSR. We provide philosophical justification for each axiom and outline a formal proof in Lean 4 demonstrating (...) that, taken together, they entail the existence of a necessary entity. (shrink)

In this paper, I present and analyse the theological reasons given by contemporary authors such as Robert J. Russell, Thomas Tracy and John Polkinghorne, as well as thirteenth‑century scholar Thomas Aquinas, to admit that the created universe requires being intrinsically contingent in its causing, in particular referring to their doctrines of providence. Contemporary authors stress the need of having indeterminate events within the natural world to allow for God’s providential action within creation, whereas Aquinas focuses his argument on the idea (...) that a universe which includes contingent causes is a more perfect universe. I compare these two approaches, concluding that Aquinas’ seems to be better suited to account for true indetermination within the natural world, claiming that divine causality is not required to complement natural causality in its own level. (shrink)

I begin by giving reasons to accept the block-universe view, the strongly supported by physics view that we live in a four-dimensional world. According to it, the past and the future are as real as the present. As a result, it seems that the future is determined in the sense that what will be the case will necessarily be the case. In the dissertation, I examine whether we have to accept this consequence. I show that we do not have to (...) bite the bullet: the future might be both real and contingent. I first start to consider modal realism (possible futures are real) as a possible solution. However, I propose then another account, actualist (positing the reality of only one possible world: the space-time we live in). This solution relies on a conventionalist theory about metaphysical modality (Sidelle, 1989). It states that modal modality is purely conventional. In combination with a realist interpretation of natural modality (causal and/or nomological), this framework allows me to propose that the future is conventionally closed and naturally contingent. In this view, the necessity of the future holds in virtue of linguistic conventions and then is conventionally necessary. But this is a distinct phenomenon from the natural contingency of the future: the future is naturally contingent because there are mind-independent probabilistic relations holding between the present and the future. This solution has strong consequences: most importantly, an anti-realist view about ordinary objects and physical particles. I end up by presenting and arguing in favour of the general image of the world that comes out from these views. (shrink)

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 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. (shrink)

This article makes three claims concerning the concept of contingency. First, we argue that the word contingency is used in far too many ways to be useful. Its many meanings are detrimental to clarity of discussion and thought in history and the social sciences. We show how there are eight distinct uses of the word and illustrate this with numerous examples from the social sciences and history, highlighting the scope for confusion caused by the many, often contradictory uses (...) of the term. Second, we impose some order on these uses through developing a threefold classification of contingency based on assumptions about possible worlds and determinism. Finally, we discuss why we believe that one of the classes is a special use of the word without relevance to the social sciences, while the two remaining classes are nothing more than a variety of the “no hidden factors” argument in the debate on indeterminism and determinism. (shrink)