Logical Studies

Propositional Imagination and Justification of Modal Beliefs

Document Type : Research

Author

Masoud Zia Ali Nasab Pour

Researcher / Analytic Philosophy School, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract
In this paper I evaluate Geirsson’s justification model for modal beliefs which he proposes in “Conceivability and Defeasible Modal Justification” (2005).  Geirsson’s justification model is based on conceivability. Geirsson gives an analysis of conceivability in terms of imagination. Geirsson admits that his account is similar to Yablo’s model, but he claims that it advances discussion in several ways. One of the claimed improvements is to employ propositional imagination for justification of modal beliefs. In this paper I will argue that Geirsson’ claimed advancements are not very useful. For among other things propositional imagination as he defines it could not provide justification for modal beliefs. Moreover Geirsson could not give an answer to the question “what exactly is propositional imagination?” based on which what he considers propositionally imaginable, e.g. denial of Goldbach's conjecture, would still be imaginable but metaphysically impossible propositions would not be propositionally imaginable.

Keywords

Propositional Imagination
Conceivability
Modal Epistemology
Possibility
Chalmers, D. 2002. “Does conceivability entail possibility?” In T. Gendler, & J. Hawthorne (eds.). Conceivability and possibility:  145–200. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fiocco, Marcello. 2007. “Conceivability, Imagination, and Modal Knowledge”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(2): 364–380.
Gendler, T. & Hawthorne J. (Eds.). 2002., Conceivability and possibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geirsson, H. 2005. “Conceivability and Defeasible Modal Justification.” Philosophical Studies. 122(3): 279–304.
Hartl, Peter. 2016. “Modal Skepticism, Yablo-Style Conceivability, and analogical Reasoning.” Synthese 193:269-291.
Hawke, Peter. 2011. “Van Inwagen’s Modal Skepticism.” Philosophical Studies. 153: 351–364.
Ichikawa, Jonathan and Jarvis, Benjamin. 2011. “Rational Imagination and Modal Knowledge.”Nous: 1–32.
Kripke, Saul, 1980, Naming and Necessity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kung, Peter, 2010, “Imagining As a Guide to Possibility”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(3): 620–663.
Kung, Peter, 2016: “Imagination and Modal Epistemology.” in A.Kind, (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination.
Seddon, George. 1972. “Logical Possibility,” Mind. 81(324), pp. 481-494.
Sosa, E. 2000. “Modal and Other A Priori Epistemology: How Can We Know What Is Possible and What’s Impossible?” The Southern Journal of Philosoph, XXXVIII (Suppl.): 1–16.
Tidman, P. 1994. “Conceivability as a test for possibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 31(4): 297–309.
Tye, Michael. The Imagery Debate, Cambridge: The MIT Press, A Bradford Book, 1991.
Van Inwagen, Peter. 1998. “Modal Epistemology”, Philosophical Studies, 92: 67–84.
Yablo, Stephen. 1993. “Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 53: 1–42.
 

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us