i) What is modal realism and why would one need to believe in it? What problems is modal realism proposed to solve? What problems accepting modal realism might create?
In this essay I am going to explain what Modal Realism is the reasons people will choose to believe in it and the reasons people will not. I will outline the problems of Modality and how Possible World Theory, and extended on to that Modal Realism, will be able to solve it. I will then move onto the weaknesses of Modal Realism, concentrating on the idea of the Incredulous Stare and then offering an alternative for this view making it a viable option to not believe in Modal Realism in Philosophy.
First, before we discuss Modal Realism, we must first consider the problem …show more content…
He believes that this world is not the only world that exists but is actually a part of countless other worlds in existence. He believes they truly exist but what are these worlds and how do they work? He believes there are many other worlds, enough so that every single way a world could possibly be there is world like that. The worlds could have anything happen in for example there could be a world in which I get a high mark in this essay and a world were I didn’t manage to finish it on time to hand it in. David Lewis claims …show more content…
It 's not that the folk know in their blood what the highfalutin ' philosophers may forget. And it 's not that common sense speaks with the voice of some infallible faculty of ‘intuition’
David Lewis does however admit that on some occasions common sense is correct but in this case even if it was correct the benefits to philosophy that modal Realism brings is worth it. He believes that even though we may need to make a huge ontological commitment and believe something we may find hard to believe the benefits it brings are much more important. David Lewis says that:
Sometimes common sense may properly be corrected, when the earned credence that is gained by making theory more systematic more than makes up for the inherited credence that is lost. It is not to be demanded that a philosophical theory should agree with anything that the man on the street would insist on offhand, uninformed and therefore uninfluenced by any theoretical gains to be had by changing his
In this essay I am going to explain what Modal Realism is the reasons people will choose to believe in it and the reasons people will not. I will outline the problems of Modality and how Possible World Theory, and extended on to that Modal Realism, will be able to solve it. I will then move onto the weaknesses of Modal Realism, concentrating on the idea of the Incredulous Stare and then offering an alternative for this view making it a viable option to not believe in Modal Realism in Philosophy.
First, before we discuss Modal Realism, we must first consider the problem …show more content…
He believes that this world is not the only world that exists but is actually a part of countless other worlds in existence. He believes they truly exist but what are these worlds and how do they work? He believes there are many other worlds, enough so that every single way a world could possibly be there is world like that. The worlds could have anything happen in for example there could be a world in which I get a high mark in this essay and a world were I didn’t manage to finish it on time to hand it in. David Lewis claims …show more content…
It 's not that the folk know in their blood what the highfalutin ' philosophers may forget. And it 's not that common sense speaks with the voice of some infallible faculty of ‘intuition’
David Lewis does however admit that on some occasions common sense is correct but in this case even if it was correct the benefits to philosophy that modal Realism brings is worth it. He believes that even though we may need to make a huge ontological commitment and believe something we may find hard to believe the benefits it brings are much more important. David Lewis says that:
Sometimes common sense may properly be corrected, when the earned credence that is gained by making theory more systematic more than makes up for the inherited credence that is lost. It is not to be demanded that a philosophical theory should agree with anything that the man on the street would insist on offhand, uninformed and therefore uninfluenced by any theoretical gains to be had by changing his