![]() |
CiteULike | ![]() |
MichaelDe's CiteULike | ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Register | ![]() |
Log in | ![]() |
THERE ARE BRUTE NECESSITIESby: Bruno Whittle
|
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
Posting History
AbstractA necessarily true sentence is 'brute' if it does not rigidly refer to anything and if it cannot be reduced to a logical truth. The question of whether there are brute necessities is an extremely natural one. Cian Dorr has recently argued for far-reaching metaphysical claims on the basis of the principle that there are no brute necessities: he initially argued that there are no non-symmetric relations, and later that there are no abstract objects at all. I argue that there are nominalistically acceptable brute necessities, and that Dorr's arguments thus fail. My argument is an application of Gödel's first incompleteness theorem.
BibTeX record
RIS record