Book Abstract -/- A Case for Necessitarianism Amy Karofsky orcid: 0000-0003-4397-4203 -/- The book provides a case for and explanation of necessitarianism—the view that absolutely nothing about the world could have been otherwise in any way whatsoever—and a refutation of contingentarianism—the view that at least some thing could have been different otherwise. Because it is the first defense of necessitarianism in over 300 years, it fills a significant gap in Western philosophical literature. -/- The book is aimed at upper-level undergraduate (...) and graduate students in philosophy and philosophers interested in the metaphysics of modality. As it is the only contemporary defense of necessitarianism, this will be the first time that such readers will be able to consider a comprehensive account and support of the necessitarian position and its merits. It may also affect a change in philosophical thought—one that would move philosophy towards a more realistic and scientific explanation of the universe and everything in it. -/- The book contains an Introduction that explains key terms and four chapters. Chapter 1 shows that there is inadequate justification for contingentarianism; Chapter 2 proves that no theory of contingentarianism can succeed; Chapter 3 provides support for necessitarianism; and Chapter 4 responds to objections. (shrink)

Some of the world’s best-loved films can be used as springboards for examining enduring philosophical questions. Philosophy Through Film provides guidance on how to watch films with an eye for their philosophical content, helping students become familiar with key topics in all of the major areas in Western philosophy, and helping them to master the techniques of philosophical argumentation. -/- The perfect size and scope for a first course in philosophy, Philosophy Through Film assumes no prior knowledge of philosophy. It (...) is an excellent teaching resource and learning tool, introducing students to key topics and figures in philosophy through thematic chapters, each of which is linked to one or more “focus films” that illustrate a philosophical problem or topic. -/- This new edition features a new chapter on the mind-body problem. In addition, one new primary reading and nine new focus films have been added. Films examined in depth include: Arrival The Matrix Inception Memento Moon Live, Die, Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow Her Ex Machina Minority Report Beautiful Boy Crimes and Misdemeanors Gone Baby Gone Equilibrium Divergent A Serious Man Silence Ad Astra . (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.1 (2001) 23-47 [Access article in PDF] Suárez' Doctrine of Eternal Truths Amy D. Karofsky 1. Introduction The primary aim of this paper is to offer an interpretation of Suárez' doctrine of eternal truths as found in Metaphysical Disputation XXXI, chapter XII, sections 38-47. There, following the typical scholastic style, Suárez considers and rejects several theories before developing his own. Because it is (...) somewhat difficult to determine what view Suárez ultimately adopts, interpretations of this passage tend to vary. For example, Norman Wells suggests that the necessity and eternality of essential propositions is grounded in the intellect of the divine being. 1 Armand Maurer and John P. Doyle maintain that eternal truths are not grounded in the being of God, but rather in the real being of the essences themselves. 2 I will argue that none of these interpretations adequately expresses Suárez' project, for Suárez wants a solution to the problem of eternal truths that does not depend upon the will of the divine being and one that avoids any ontological commitment to unactualized, possible essences. 3 2. Explanation of the Problem of Eternal Truths Suárez begins the thirty-first disputation with a proof of the identity of essence and existence in finite creatures. The key premise in his argument is the claim that, lacking existence, an unactualized essence is not a being, but absolutely [End Page 23] nothing. 4 By 'being' Suárez means existing being, or a being that is created by God. 5 Unlike the essence of God, the essence of a creature is dependent for its being on the efficient causality of God. Prior to the creative act of God, then, the essence of a creature is not an existing being, hence not a being at all; the unactualized, possible essence is a non-being or nothing.From the claim that a nonexistent essence is absolutely nothing, the following problem arises:... si, ablata existentia, perit essentia, ergo propositiones illae in quibus praedicata essentialia de re praedicantur, non sunt necessariae, neque perpetuae veritatis... 6An essential proposition of the form "X is f" is a proposition in which an essential property f is attributed to an object X. If there are no X's in existence, then there is nothing of which f can be predicated. It would seem, then, that the proposition, "X is f" must be false. One might maintain, however, that even though there are no X's in existence, there is an essence (of) X that has the property f. And in this way, "X is f" remains true, even if there are no X's in existence.However, if one holds, as Suárez does, that the unactualized essence is absolutely nothing, then this solution will not work. For if there are no X's in existence, and if a nonexistent essence is absolutely nothing, then there is nothing of which the essential attribute can be predicated. Thus it appears that any proposition that purports to attribute a property to a nonexistent object must be false and so clearly it can be neither necessarily nor eternally true. Therefore, because Suárez believes that an unactualized essence is absolutely nothing, he seems to be committed to the claim that essential propositions are neither necessarily, nor eternally, true. I will refer to this problem as the Problem of Eternal Truths.Another way to illustrate the Problem of Eternal Truths is to see that there are two seemingly inconsistent propositions: AN: An unactualized, possible essence is absolutely nothing, and NE: True essential propositions are necessarily and eternally true. [End Page 24]Given that a proposition in which a property is attributed to an unactualized essence is false, if Suárez wants to assert the truth of AN, it would appear that he must deny the truth of NE, and, in so doing, reject the possibility of any science of creatures that deals only with necessary truths.Suárez considers three different solutions to this problem: (What I will call) the Aristotelian Solution, the Divine... (shrink)

Algunas interpretaciones contemporáneas de Descartes sugieren que él defiende una posición conceptualista en relación con las verdades eternas. De acuerdo con esta lectura de Descartes, las modalidades se determinan por lo que las mentes de un universo puedan concebir. Dado que lo que es posible depende de aquello que los intelectos puedan concebir, no hay concepto de posibilidad alguno que preceda a la existencia de los intelectos. De ahí que, antes de la existencia de los intelectos,no es el caso que (...) cualquier cosa sea posible para Dios. Según tal punto de vista, el conceptualista puede evitar comprometerse con la doctrina de que Dios puede hacer cualquier cosa. En este artículo muestro, entonces, que los pasajes usados en favor de la lectura conceptualista de Descartes son malinterpretados. Concluyo que Descartes no es un conceptualista. (shrink)

God’s relationship to modalities poses a serious problem for the theist. If God determines modalities, then it seems that he can do anything. If, on the other hand, modalities determine God’s actions, then it seems that he is not genuinely free. Conceptualism offers a solution to this problem by maintaining that modalities are determined by what is conceivable for the intellects of the universe that God has chosen to create. Prior to the creation of intellects, there are no modalities restricting (...) God’s choice. Consequently, God is genuinely free. What is more, prior to creation there are no modalities, thus it is not the case that anything is possible. However, there are several problems with conceptualism. In particular, because the necessary features of the modal concepts themselves are independent of the shape of any intellect, no form of conceptualism will succeed as a solution to the problem of modalities. (shrink)