Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers

by Kit Fine

Since the 1970s Kit Fine has been one of the leading contributors to work at the intersection of logic and metaphysics. This is his eagerly-awaited first book in the area. It draws together a series of essays, three of them previously unpublished, on possibility, necessity, and tense. These puzzling aspects of the way the world is have been the focus of considerable philosophical attention in recent decades. A helpful introduction orients the reader and offers a way into some of the most original work in contemporary philosophy.

Genres: Philosophy, Metaphysics, Logic, Linguistics

396 pages, Paperback

First published July 14, 2005

Reviews

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

To date, this is the best book on the philosophy of modality. If you find Kripke, Quine, Lewis or Plantinga's views on modality largely too extreme and implausible to take seriously, then this book will certainly tickle your fancy. Caveat, Kit Fine's work is dauntingly dense and difficult; it moves at a snail's pace and requires intense concentration. Also, I've found his level of originality refreshing and his method of "flexible rigor" very useful.

Fine follows Aristotle and Prior by focusing on actuality and taking modality as primitive. An overview of his account may look something like this: Individual Essence (has its distinct source in the nature of objects) is prior to Necessity (...the identity of objects) which is prior to Possible Worlds (...general possibilities). He argues that there are three basic and distinct forms of necessity: metaphysical, natural or normative. It seems to me, then, that Fine is a pluralist or fragmentalist of some sort in regards to modality and the nature of reality, which suggests his discontent with modal monists, i.e., Kripke.

[Socrates · Rating 5 out of 5]

我和Anja聊天，她说如果做物理学家，一辈子只能在一个极小的分支做比如粒子物理学家，做哲学家则能旅游古今。虽未仔细学习过自然科学任何一门，不能完全理解她对物理学的评论，但学术分工的一重必要显然来自一个人生命、精力、认知量的有限，这使个人无法承受一个学科哪怕一个分支之分支的庞大认知量。

然而和Anja一样，我不认为哲学内部达到了这样的认知量。她本人就是活生生的例子，in a lot of sense，it’s doable，任何一支的文献量远未到达无法穷尽的地步。其次，哲学争论必将在共识之上展开，一套哲学讨论的共识被拒斥，那套哲学讨论从一个哲学家眼里都是不成立的也不用学的，这大大降低了一个拥有整体性问题意识哲学家的阅读量，除非作品蕴含比立场更丰富的价值，而这样的作品是罕见的。

但即使没有学术分工的必要，不代表学术分工没有其他好处。比如即使一个人一辈子可以学这么多，不是每个人都想学那么多，有的人只对一个话题有兴趣，取消整体视野的硬性要求，学术分工可以容纳来自更多人的声音，这可以收集多元的视野。但危险在于，只对一点问题有看法，势必意味不少隐含前提要诉诸直觉、或一套圈内人都同意的范式，这样低矮的堤防无法阻拦有整体性问题意识的哲学家如钱塘江涨潮的进攻，那群一定要把万事问穿为什么的人；而当整个学术界倾向于纠缠枝节，整体性问题则被弃之不顾，比如顶尖分析哲学家Fine提出一套形而上学的范式，还没有驳斥其他形而上学范式，只是三国演义、群雄并踞，已经被算很了不起，下一代哲学家在学术训练中只吞食分析哲学内部作品，整体性问题意识的孕育将越发难得，无法养出本来能养成的大视野。

实践哲学是特殊的情况，实践哲学家的整体意识就在统合每个个体对公共生活的意见，because it’s their life, it’s should be their decision。