Necessary Laws? Seifert vs. Oderberg

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15260%2F15%3A33155294" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15260/15:33155294 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=studneoar&id=studneoar_2015_0012_0001_0005_0056" target="_blank" >https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=studneoar&id=studneoar_2015_0012_0001_0005_0056</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Necessary Laws? Seifert vs. Oderberg

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

I discuss Josef Seifert, a realist phenomenologist, and David Oderberg, an Aristotelian. Both endorse essences, understood as objective quiddities. Both argue that no (a posteriori) law of nature is strongly (metaphysically) necessary: i.e. true in everypossible world. But they disagree about weak necessity of laws: Seifert argues that no law is true in every possible world in which its referring expressions are non-empty, while Oderberg argues that some (indeed, any) is. I restate, relate, and reviewreasons of both authors for each of those theses. Seifert's reasons include God's ability to do miracles, conceivability of counterinstances to laws, and many others. Oderberg's reasons include dependence of laws on particulars, depiction of laws as truths about properties necessarily connected with essences, and explanation of persistent regularities by means of that necessary connection. I argue that no reason of either Seifert or Oderberg is convincing, as its stands. But I also argue

Název v anglickém jazyce

Necessary Laws? Seifert vs. Oderberg

Popis výsledku anglicky

I discuss Josef Seifert, a realist phenomenologist, and David Oderberg, an Aristotelian. Both endorse essences, understood as objective quiddities. Both argue that no (a posteriori) law of nature is strongly (metaphysically) necessary: i.e. true in everypossible world. But they disagree about weak necessity of laws: Seifert argues that no law is true in every possible world in which its referring expressions are non-empty, while Oderberg argues that some (indeed, any) is. I restate, relate, and reviewreasons of both authors for each of those theses. Seifert's reasons include God's ability to do miracles, conceivability of counterinstances to laws, and many others. Oderberg's reasons include dependence of laws on particulars, depiction of laws as truths about properties necessarily connected with essences, and explanation of persistent regularities by means of that necessary connection. I argue that no reason of either Seifert or Oderberg is convincing, as its stands. But I also argue

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AA - Filosofie a náboženství

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/EE2.3.30.0041" target="_blank" >EE2.3.30.0041: Podpora vytváření excelentních výzkumných týmů a intersektorální mobility na Univerzitě Palackého v Olomouci II.</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2015

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Studia neoaristotelica

ISSN

1214-8407

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

12

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

52

Strana od-do

5-56

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—