possible worlds

I’m being a little lazy right now, but I just want to post this here and have a bit of conversation about it. I’m no authority on this subject, but I’ve been reading a good bit this year and I think there’s alot more to this than is on the surface. Let’s talk about the pros and cons of possible world theories.

Here’s a little intro for you to read if interested.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

Now when you start thinking about how we’re supposed to identify which world we’re in, as in, how we’re supposed to KNOW something is true in the world in which we inhabit, (the actual world), you may want to take a look here…
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8 … 0.CO%3B2-J
(if you don’t have jstor, i’ll email you the article if you’re interested. i really think it does a good job of clearing up some things with this line of thinking.)

Now if the conversation about this gets going, people will bring up examples to show how one another are right or wrong. This is the fun part. You call call each other the names at the bottom of this page…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic
…and it might actually end up being productive. Who knows???

So who knows about this? Anyone care to discuss these things?

You guys are all intellectually lazy ego maniacs who aren’t interested in anything that you don’t already, (and usually mistakenly) consider yourselves authorities on.

I suppose we are pseudo intellectuals to one degree or another.

Once one thinks himself an authority, his claim is no longer free.

This stuff interests me actually, I’m not sure how I missed it earlier. Anyway, beginning such a discussion it’s important to stress that “possible worlds” doesn’t refer specifically to some fantastical claims of alternate universes and what-not. It’s generally used in logic as a way of saying “hypothetically.”

I think I’m going to do a whole class of just David Lewis this spring.

Why him?

Candide! Voltaire! The most worthy author of this idea the way I see it. An entire philosophy put into a most amusing story, fantastic. It’s a pity Rousseau ruined his name and most put more value in his legal authority than the questioning wanderer.

He just died I think in 2003, which means he is just about as current as you can get in philosophy. I’ve already read a great deal of material from him, and he’s a very good writer. Also, I have a professor who is particularly interested in his work, to such an extent that I think I could gain a unique understanding of some things with the help of her insight. It’s great stuff and it’s a good opportunity.

. . .

Excellent! Thank you for proving a personal point of mine with your statement–

That people generally believe the only good philosopher is a dead one.

I hear the same holds true for artists and saviors.