The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) by Alvin Plantinga (PDF)

Description

This is a reissue of a book which is an exploration and defence of the notion of modality ‘de re’, the idea that objects have both essential and accidental properties. It is one of the first full-length studies of the modalities to emerge from the debate to which Saul Kripke, David Lewis, Ruth Marcus and others have contributed.The argument is developed by means of the notion of possible worlds, and ranges over key problems including the nature of essence, trans-world identity, negative existential propositions, and the existence of unactual objects in other possible worlds. In the final chapters Professor Plantinga applies his logical theories to the clarification of two problems in the philosophy of religion – the Problem of Evil and the Ontological Argument.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐If someone thinks that Anselmo’s ontological argument is right, this book intends to show that it is not, save if amended as offered in the book; if someone thinks that Anselmo is not right, then he may be interested to see if the amended version does work, as this book asserts.Anselmo said something like this, although this is not the official version:1. Imagine that God exists in your mind but not in the reality (the world out of your mind).2. A God that exists in your mind and also outside your mind is greater.3. You can conceive a God that exists in your mind and also outside it.4. You cannot conceive a God that is greater than himself.5. So it follows that you cannot imagine a God that exists only in your mind: God exists.Anselmo thanked God for letting him entertain this thinking that, Anselmo said, he did not need to prove his faith in God’s existence, but found it convenient if used to show that it is foolish to think that He does not exist.Many objections have been offered. My summary of some family of them is:1. Ok. I will imagine that a god, or a God if you like, exists in my mind, and only in my mind, as you ask for.2. Yes, of course, that kind of being is greater than the one you have asked me to imagine, because you firstly asked me to imagine a restricted one.3. Yes, I can have in my mind that unrestricted conception.4. Yes, I cannot conceive anything that is greater than it is.5. If you ask to me to imagine something and then tell me that it cannot be imagined, I can agree with you that it cannot be imagined (there is no God in my mind because a restricted god is not a God at all, so I imagined a god), but from the fact that I cannot have an idea of a restricted God it does not follow that a no restricted God exists; what does follow, if something follows, is: “there is not restricted God”. This late statement cannot be construed as if equal to: “there is an unrestricted God”, nor does implies it.I think this is a good point of entry for a problem that has entertained many powerful minds, Gõdel for example. However, it is usually forgotten that Anselmo used his device to intend to prove that there is a God in the sense that reality is divided as follows: Creator/creation. Spinoza’s proof of the necessary existence of the only one substance by means of (somewhat) Anselmo’s device, is one of the most wonderful ironies hidden within his “Ethics”. For Spinoza uses it in the sense that there is only one but not two substances, beings, or realities. I have seen no commentator or scholar that grasps this masterly strategy, the finest of jokes, that of his that is also, I believe, a full truth; but surely there must be some that did grasp it.So, if someone wants to use Anselmo’s argument to prove that one reality or being exists, without intending to imply that there are at least two, the thing may go like this:1. Imagine that God exists in your mind but not in the reality (the world out of your mind).2. A God that exists in your mind and also outside your mind is greater.3. You can conceive a God that exists in your mind and also outside it.4. You cannot conceive a God that is greater than himself, nor one that is lesser.5. So what you have conceived is a God of which your mind is part.It is not, of course, the way Spinoza put it; however if one does not forget Spinoza’s caveat “deus sive natura” (it is a caveat, not a merely nice idea or phrasing), I believe that this play with words may be at least entertaining in this context.These are the kind of things (or the very opposite) that any reader may encounter in this book, and as Mr. Plantinga is one of the best exponents of dualism under theological considerations, and also under formal logic, this mixture of things is at least challenging.

⭐This is STILL Alvin Plantinga’s most impressive book to date.A philosophical masterpiece that excels in modal logic.Plantinga does a great job with his version of the Ontological Argument. In perfect being theology, God is defined as “A Maximally Great Being” which means that God possesses all great-making, properties such as love, knowledge, and power, and possesses each in a maximal way.Alvin Plantinga swings around Kant’s object by showing how necessity is a property, and that Existence is not. Necessity does not entail existence. Necessity just means that if something exists, it exists in all possible worlds. Numbers have this property.It is perfectly within the laws of modal logic for a property (which is not a perfection) to entail its negation.While the Ontological Argument from Anselm has been restored by the likes of Stephen T Davis, now it clearly shows that the Ontological Argument is indeed the most powerful argument for God’s existence. While the layman will have a lot of trouble understanding why, this does nothing to the argument itself.Robert Maydole speaks about this book a lot in his writings of the Modal Perfection Argument, and rightly so. This book should is NECESSARY for everyone who is into philosophical theology.

⭐Powerfully defends the case for synthetic necessary truths. And yet another analysis of the perennial ontological argument is exceptionally refined and convincingly demonstrates that most standard “refutations” simplistically miss the point. Though dense at places these discussions are never deliberately obscure. The reasoning, in fact, is unusually naked for philosophic writing, by which I mean that I sense no attempt to conceal difficulties or sidetrack potential objections. Whether sympathetic with the conclusions or not one should admire this sort of intellectual honesty.

⭐Two pages of the book were somehow bound, but it was no problem. The book was great!Thank you very much!

⭐Alvin Plantinga does his work as usual – clear, indepth and concise writting. Much in argument form. Plantinga is tops when it comes to Philosophy. He has set the direction for thinking for man – His argument on free-will is outstanding.EG

⭐Thx

⭐Basically New, I ordered the book last out of an order of 3 other books and received it first!

⭐Finally a coherent model for the reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom

⭐Fantastic book, many sophisticated arguments concerning broad spectrum of topics connected with possible worlds metaphysics.

⭐Bien que quelque peu ancien ce livre reste une référence pour saisir la notion, si ce n’est de nécessité, du moins d’essence. Plantinga brosse un panorama très complet des débats mêlant métaphysique et logique des mondes possibles. Sa capacité à exploiter les outils logique par le prisme de questionnement philosophique est remarquable.Il s’inscrit ici dans le renouveau amorcé par Kripke sur les questions modales liés à la métaphysique et ne manque pas de faire une critique précise des thèses alors les plus récentes. Un livre à lire pour saisir le renouveau qu’à connut la métaphysique depuis les années 70.Although somewhat old, this book remains a reference to grasp the notion, if not of necessity, at least of essence. Plantinga gives a very complete panorama of the debates mixing metaphysics and logic of possible worlds. His capacity to exploit the logical tools through the prism of philosophical questioning is remarkable.He is part of the revival initiated by Kripke on modal questions related to metaphysics and does not fail to make a precise criticism of the most recent theses. A book to be read in order to understand the renewal of metaphysics since the 70’s.

⭐

Keywords

Free Download The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) in PDF format
The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) PDF Free Download
Download The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) 1978 PDF Free
The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) 1978 PDF Free Download
Download The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy) PDF
Free Download Ebook The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy)