Skip to main content

Necessity

Reading Kit Fine's old paper on the varieties of necessity. He claims, with provisos, that there are three kinds of necessity irreducible to any of the other two. Metaphysical necessity, natural necessity and normative necessity. It is interesting that each notion of necessity yields a way to conceive of metaphysics. I'd also add what Fine calls logical necessity in the narrow sense - as opposed to logical necessity in the broad sense that would coincide with metaphysical necessity - necessity associated with identities. In fact, metaphysical necessity is connected to a project like Aristotle's ontology of substances: metaphysics as

an a priori necessary endeavor concerning things in themselves and about matters of fact.

A logical necessity in the narrow sense would be associated to the idea of metaphysics as logic:

an a priori necessary endeavor concerning things in themselves and about matters of reason

(a priori knowledge understood either as conventional or as guided by intellectuelle Anschauung). Fine takes natural necessity to be what is typically taken to be necessary and a posteriori. If cats are animals, this is naturally necessary. Fine argues that still there could be, say, Putnam-cats in another possible world that wouldn't be cats but something else that would necessarily be robots. Cats are (naturally) necessarily animals in this world but they are not (metaphysically) necessarily animals because this (natural) necessity doesn't preclude the existence of Putnam-cats in a possible world. If this is so, natural necessity is not metaphysical necessity. Then we can conceive of metaphysics based on natural necessity and take it to be

an a posteriori necessary endeavor concerning things in themselves and about matters of fact.

To complete, we have the Kantian notion of metaphysics based on normative necessity according to which it is

an a priori necessary endeavor concerning things for us and about matters of fact.


Thinking of M4 in Aristotle's Metaphysics, we can take Kant's conception of metaphysics as dealing with the absence of substantiality that makes all sensible things be in a perpetual flow. If there is no knowledge of the accidental because it carries no necessity (no substantiality) - and that means it carries no metaphysical necessity and arguably no natural necessity - then the only necessity left in normative. If there is no knowledge of the non-necessary we make it necessary by norms - at the price of making the judgments limited to what there is for us. We somehow impinge necessity on things (on phenomena) to make them intelligible to us - and known, to us.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos