Publisher
The University of Arizona.Rights
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.Abstract
Modality is the study of two different modes 1 of truth; possibility and necessity. These notions are completely pervasive to our everyday life, but there is a specific species that philosophers are most interested in -- metaphysical modality. Metaphysical modality hopes to capture everything that could’ve possible been and everything that must be. In the current literature on metaphysical modality, there are two competing views -- the Governance and Classification conceptions. The Governance conception argues that necessity in some way governs truth. The Classification conception argues that modality is simply a classification of what kind of a truth some particular truth is. Viewing modality in either light has rippling effects on what kinds of modal theories one can endorse. In this paper, I will present two such Classification style theories. In doing so, I aim to show that similar objections apply to both. Furthermore, I argue that any theory viewing modality through the Classification conception will be open to such objections. Lastly, I argue that the debate between the Classification and Governance conceptions should be carried out further before debate over specific theories continues.Type
textElectronic Thesis
Degree Name
B.A.Degree Program
Honors CollegePhilosophy