How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles
Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Dialectica 2019-09, Vol.73 (3), p.315-329 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 329 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 315 |
container_title | Dialectica |
container_volume | 73 |
creator | Baras, Dan |
description | Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1746-8361.12269 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_1746_8361_12269</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48552625</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48552625</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMoWKtrV0JeYNpcJslkJeN4aaHgworLkMlFpkybmrSU7nwNX88nsWNtt57NORz-7xz4ALjGaIB3NcQi51lBOR5gQrg8Ab3j5hT0EMIkIwiLc3CR0gwhKiSmPWBGYQOrNiQHy-jgeL4MKTV16-BbiK1Nt7CEVWxWzcfaweDhXQzvWkcL9cLCF926uAjfn18JlsaE9WLVZapucPFwKV2CM6_b5K7-eh-8Pj5Mq1E2eX4aV-UkM5RhmQmPrKc5Qx57gpzgDklZUMMtzQkTtLaYC2pN7bWU2NcFqrUxXutc50XBatoHw_1dE3evo_NqGZu5jluFkeocqc6I6oyoX0c7gu-JTdO67X9xdT-ZVgfwZg_O0irEI5gXjBFOGP0BiWl0OQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Baras, Dan</creator><creatorcontrib>Baras, Dan</creatorcontrib><description>Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-2017</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1746-8361</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1746-8361.12269</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Wiley</publisher><ispartof>Dialectica, 2019-09, Vol.73 (3), p.315-329</ispartof><rights>2019 The Author</rights><rights>2019 The Author © 2019 Editorial Board of</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48552625$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48552625$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baras, Dan</creatorcontrib><title>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</title><title>Dialectica</title><description>Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.</description><issn>0012-2017</issn><issn>1746-8361</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMoWKtrV0JeYNpcJslkJeN4aaHgworLkMlFpkybmrSU7nwNX88nsWNtt57NORz-7xz4ALjGaIB3NcQi51lBOR5gQrg8Ab3j5hT0EMIkIwiLc3CR0gwhKiSmPWBGYQOrNiQHy-jgeL4MKTV16-BbiK1Nt7CEVWxWzcfaweDhXQzvWkcL9cLCF926uAjfn18JlsaE9WLVZapucPFwKV2CM6_b5K7-eh-8Pj5Mq1E2eX4aV-UkM5RhmQmPrKc5Qx57gpzgDklZUMMtzQkTtLaYC2pN7bWU2NcFqrUxXutc50XBatoHw_1dE3evo_NqGZu5jluFkeocqc6I6oyoX0c7gu-JTdO67X9xdT-ZVgfwZg_O0irEI5gXjBFOGP0BiWl0OQ</recordid><startdate>20190901</startdate><enddate>20190901</enddate><creator>Baras, Dan</creator><general>Wiley</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190901</creationdate><title>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</title><author>Baras, Dan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baras, Dan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Dialectica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baras, Dan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</atitle><jtitle>Dialectica</jtitle><date>2019-09-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>315</spage><epage>329</epage><pages>315-329</pages><issn>0012-2017</issn><eissn>1746-8361</eissn><abstract>Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.</abstract><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/1746-8361.12269</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-2017 |
ispartof | Dialectica, 2019-09, Vol.73 (3), p.315-329 |
issn | 0012-2017 1746-8361 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_1746_8361_12269 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
title | How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T18%3A24%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20Close%20Are%20Impossible%20Worlds?%20A%20Critique%20of%20Brogaard%20and%20Salerno%E2%80%99s%20Account%20of%20Counterpossibles&rft.jtitle=Dialectica&rft.au=Baras,%20Dan&rft.date=2019-09-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=315&rft.epage=329&rft.pages=315-329&rft.issn=0012-2017&rft.eissn=1746-8361&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12269&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E48552625%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48552625&rfr_iscdi=true |