What is Modality? (Definition)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video we examine the different varieties of modality (the ideas of possibility and necessity), including metaphysical (logical), nomic (natural or scientific), epistemic (doxastic), and deontic (moral or ethical).
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
i came here for understanding the term modality but suddenly my ear bombarded with epistamic doxastic nomic deontic. Im Fcked.
Usually when people are talking about modality in a philosophical context, they are talking about metaphysical modality. Note that other disciplines use the word differently, and the philosophical definition is not the most common.
A few questions:
1) Alethic modal logic maps onto metaphysical modality, and deontic and epistemic modal logics map onto deontic and epistemic modality. But is there some type of modal logic that maps onto nomic modality? And since temporal modal logic is a thing, is there also such a thing as temporal modality?
2) This is a much less interesting question, but how do you manage to type the square and diamond symbols? For me, they do not work when using the Leander font.
is there a deconstruction modality
What are the differences between modalities in the ancient, medieval and modern worlds?
Good question 🤔
Are metaphysical necessity and logical necessity different? I read that logical necessity entails metaphysical necessity, but not vice versa.
Hmm. In most works I have seen, logical and metaphysical modality are the same. Logical necessity entails any other kind of necessity, so if someone was defining metaphysical necessity slightly differently (possibly as I define nomic necessity here) then the implication you mention would be the case.
People, you know what to do.
How do we know that math and logic are metaphysically necessary?
Amoxyl Take the example of a triangle with straight lines. In this thought experiment, we are excluding scenarios where a triangle is placed on curved plane and only focusing on triangles with straight lines purely for the sake of clearer understanding.
A triangle *must* have three sides given that is the exact definition of a triangle. If something does not have three sides to it then it can not be defined as a triangle.
Why? Because we know that all three sides of a triangle (the interior angles) add up to 180 degrees. There is no world in which a triangle (perfect or not) has more or less than 180 degrees when you add up the measure of the angles on all of its sides. This would constitute a metaphysical necessity as their is simply no world in which a triangle exists that does not meet the aforementioned criteria.
You can title it whatever you want-we have given it the name triangle-but ultimately what is being described is a universal set of rules; All triangles with straight lines *must* have 3 sides and must have interior angles that add up to 180 degrees.
Have you ever done a video on the difference between mathematical probability and epistemic probability? There is a video with a comment exchange where one person is claiming he meant epistemic probablity not mathematical whilst a counter argument saying that epistemic probablity relies on mathematical probability. I don't understand the difference or why epistemic probability would rely on mathematical probability.
Any thoughts?
nitelite78 I have a whole series on Bayesian Epistemology, which deals with epistemic probability as it is used in terms of degrees of belief in the context of Bayesian Epsitemology. th-cam.com/video/YRz8deiJ57E/w-d-xo.html
Not to pick nits (that is the standard preface to a forthcoming nit-pick, right?) but in your illustration at about 2:40, to be more accurate, a jury finds a person *not guilty* _not_ "innocent". As you know, the two are not the same.
I like hanging around here, even though most of your stuff is beyond my ken.
lreadlResurrected Thanks for the correction, those are importantly different claims. And I'm trying to balance out some of the heavier stuff with some lighter material like this. I'm glad you enjoy.
Is there an aesthetic modality?
CosmoShidan Not that I have heard of, but I suppose it could be out there. Things that are necessarily beautiful, possibly beautiful and not beautiful in any world is one understanding of the interaction between beauty and modality.. It's an interesting question of how does beauty function across different worlds. However it is important to note that this would not be a *kind* of modality, merely the way that aesthetics *interacts* with modality. We are not positing that there is a set of worlds such that they are in some way determined by the laws of aesthetics (though there might be someone out there that does).
Carneades.org Cool!
Noice ! Copy and Paste English lessons in the house ! What ever work$ ,can't hate.
So...would we say the proposition, "Obama is not president," is not epistemically possible because in our actual world we know this is false? Or, "Demons are the cause of natural evil" is not epistemically possible but it is logically possible because there's no contradiction which means in some possible world it obtains...?
+Aristotle Epistemic possibility needs to be centered around an agent and their evidence. If an agent had not evidence then anything could be epistemically possible. But for most agents, yes, Obama is not president would not be epistemically possible. You are correct for the demons, so long as they are not logically contradictory they are logically possible, and it obtains in some possible world.
Carneades.org, thanks, that really helps :)
The Difference Between Life and Death = 89 Days^^
I still don't get it
What confuses you?
Ulysses brought me here.
I heard from a video something about a proof that math is man-made? Wouldn't that make it not metaphysically necessary? I can't recall the exact video, it was an overview of all the topics in math.
Are these videos just a guy reading the text on screen?
You didn't explain what modality is. I'm sorry, but you could have done a better job. I left with no enhanced understanding on the topic