Plantinga - On Existentialism

8/10/2019 Plantinga - On Existentialism

1/20

A L V I N P L A N T I N G A

O N E X I S T E N T I A L I S M

(Received 15 A ugust, 1982)

A c c o r d i ng t o J e a n P a t ti S a r t r e , e x i s t e n ti a l is m i s t he v i e w t ha t e x i s t e nc e p r e -

cedes e s sence . As I sha ll use the t e rm , ex i s t en t i a l i sm i s the thes i s tha t ex i s t en ce ,

e ve n i f i t doe s no t p r e c e de e s s e nc e , i s a t a ny r a t e no t p r e c e de d by i t . L e t m e

e xp l a i n .

I . E X I S T E N T I A L I S M E X P O U N D E D

S u p p o s e w e b e g i n b y e n d o r s in g o r a t a n y ra t e n o t c o n t e s ti n g t h e v i e w t h a t

ob j e c t s h a ve i nd i v idua l e s s e nc e s. A n i nd i v idua l e s s e nc e E o f a n ob j e c t x i s a

p r o p e r t y t h a t m e e t s t w o c o n d i t io n s : ( 1 ) E is e s se n ti al to x , s o t h a t i t is n o t

pos s i b le t ha t x e x i s t bu t l a c k E , a n d ( 2 ) E is e s s e n ti a ll y un i que t o x , s o t ha t

i t i s no t pos s i b l e t ha t t he r e s hou l d ha ve be e n a n o b j e c t d i s ti nc t f r o m x t ha t

had E . I be l i eve i t i s obvious tha t the re a re ind iv idua l e s sences . Cons ide r ,

f o r e x a m p l e , t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e in g W i ll ia m F . B u c k l e y o r b e in g i d en t ic a l

w i t h W i l li am F . B uc k l e y . S u r e l y t ha t p r op e r t y i s e s s e n ti a l t o B uc k l e y ; he

c o u l d n ' t h a v e e x i s te d b u t l a c k e d i t. ( O f c o u r s e h e c o u l d h a v e l a c k e d th e

n a m e ~ / i l li a m F . B u c k l e y ' ; n o d o u b t h is p a r e n t s c o u l d h av e n a m e d h i m q ~ic o

de l l a M i r a ndo i a ' i f t he y ' d w i s he d . ) Bu t t he p r ope r t y i n que s t i on i s a l s o

e s s e n ti a ll y un i que t o h i m ; i t i s no t pos s i b le t ha t s o m e on e d is t i nc t f r om Buc k -

l e y s h o u l d h a v e h a d t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e i n g i d e n ti c a l w i t h W i ll ia m F . B u c k l e y .

O n e k i n d o f e s s e n c e , t h e n , i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e i n g i d e n t i c a l w i t h s o m e

o b j e c t - i.e . t h e p r o p e r t y , f o r s o m e o b j e c t x , o f b e in g i de n ti ca l w i t h x .

F o l l o w i n g R o b e r t A d a m s a n d D u n s S c o t u s , s u p p o s e w e c a l l s u c h a p r o p e r t y

a t h i s n e s s ; t he t h i sne s s o f a n i nd i v i dua l i s t he p r o pe r t y o f be i ng t h a t i nd i v idua l .

I t i s no t ne c e s s a r y t ha t w e u s e p r op e r na m e s t o s pe c i f y o r re f e r t o t h i s nes s e s;

w h e n I u s e t h e w o r d s t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e i ng I o r t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e in g

i d e n t ic a l w i t h m e , t h e p r o p e r t y t h e y d e n o t e is a t h is n e ss . A n d c o n s id e r t h e

m e a n e s t m a n i n N o r t h D a k o t a : t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e i n g i d e n ti c a l w i t h h i m is

a lso a thisness .

Philosophical Studies 44 (1983) 1-20. 0031-8116/83/0441-0001502.00

Copyright 9 1983 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland and Boston, U.S.A.


2/20

2 L V I N P L N T I N G

So objec ts have th isnesses and th isnesses a re e ssences . One ex is ten t ia l i s t

t h e s i s - a t he s is e n d o r s e d b y A r t h u r P r io r , R o b e r t A d a m s , K i t F in e a n d

o t h e r s - c a n b e s t a te d a s f o ll o w s : t hi sn e ss es ar e o n t o l o g ic a l ly d e p e n d e n t

up on the i r e xe m pl i f i c a tions . Ta ke a ny th i sne ss t a n d the ob je c t x o f wh ic h t

i s t he t h i sne s s; t c ou ld no t ha ve e x i s t e d i f x ha d no t . I f B uc k le y ha d no t

e x i s t e d , t he n h i s t h isne s s wo u ld no t ha ve e x i s t e d . Eve r y th isne s s ha s essential-

ly the p r o p e r t y o f b ei n g e x e m p l i fi e d b y t h e o b j e c t th a t d o e s in f a c t e x e m p l i f y

i t . Mor e e x a c t ly , t he t he si s i n que s t ion is t ha t i t is necessary t ha t e ve r y th is -

ne s s ha s t ha t p r o pe r ty ; i t i s no t a s i f t he r e c ou ld ha ve be e n th i sne s se s t ha t

c o u l d h a v e l a c k e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t io n .

Th i s e x i s t e n t i a li s t t he s is c a n b e e x t e nd e d . Le t s s a y tha t a p r op e r ty is

quidditative i f i t i s e i th e r a th i sness or involves a th isness in a ce r ta in wa y. We

c ou ld t r y t o spel l ou t t he wa y in qu e s t ion in f o r m a l a nd r e c usive de t a i l; bu t

in s t e a d l e t me ju s t g ive some e xa mple s .

Being identical wi th N ero

o r

being

N e r o

i s a qu idd i t a t ive p r o pe r ty ; bu t so a r e

being more blood-thirs ty than

Nero being either Ne ro or Cicero being either N ero or wise being possibly

wiser than Nero being believed by N ero to be treacherous

a n d

being such

that there is some one m ore b loodth irs ty than Ne ro .

W e m a y c o n t r a s t t h e

n o t i o n o f a q u i d d i ta t iv e p r o p e r t y w i t h t h a t o f a

qualitative

pr o pe r ty . Aga in , I

sha l l no t t ry to g ive a def in i t ion o f th is n o t i o n ; b u t e x am p l es w o u ld b e being

wise being 14 years old being angry being learned being s ix fe et fr om a

d e s k a nd the l i ke . I f P a nd Q a r e qua l i ta t i ve p r ope r t i e s , t he n so is t he i r c on -

j u n c t i o n , t h e i r d is j u n c ti o n , th e c o m p l e m e n t o f e a c h , being such that there is

someth ing tha t hasP a n d possibly having P . An d the m or e ge ne r a l e x i s t e n ti a l is t

t he s is is t ha t wh i l e qua l i t a ti ve p r ope r t i e s ma y be ne c e s sa r y be ings a nd e x i s t in

e ve r y poss ib l e w or ld , qu idd i t a t i ve p r ope r t i e s a r e on to log ic a l ly de pe nde n t

upo n the ob je c t s w hose th isne sse s t he y invo lve . O f c ou r se the t h i snes s o f a

necessary

b e i n g - G o d , p e r h a p s , o r t o u s e a t h e o l o g i c a ll y le ss d r a m a t i c

e x a m p l e , t h e n u m b e r s e v e n - e x is ts n ec e s sa r il y , j u s t a s d o e s th e o b j e c t o f

wh ic h i t i s a t h i sne s s ; a nd the s a me goe s f o r a ny qu idd i t a t i ve p r ope r ty t ha t

invo lve s on ly th isne sse s o f ne c e s sa r y be ings. B u t suc h a qu idd i t a t i ve p r op e r ty

as being wiser than Bu ckley c o u l d n o t h a v e e x i s t e d i f h e h a d n o t .

Th e f i r s t e x i s t e n t ia l i st t he s i s , t he r e f o r e , is t ha t qu idd i t a t i ve p r op e r t i e s a r e

on to log ic a l ly de pe nde n t upon , the i nd iv idua l s whose th i sne s se s t he y invo lve .

An d a s e c on d e x i s t e n t i a li s t t hes i s is li ke un to the f i rs t . C ons ide r t he p r opos i -

t i ons


3/20

ON E XI ST E NT I A L I SM 3

(1) W i ll iam F . Bu ckley i s w i se

a n d

( 2 ) T he L i on o f Cons e r va t i v i s m i s w i s e .

T h e f i rs t , w e m i g h t t h i n k , i n v o lv e s B u c k l e y i n a m o r e d i r e c t a n d i n t i m a t e w a y

t ha n doe s t he s e c ond . T h e s e c ond r e f e r s t o h i m , s o t o s a y , on l y a c c i de n t a l l y -

o n l y b y v i r t u e o f t h e f a c t t h a t h e h a p p e n s t o b e t h e L i o n o f C o n s e r v at iv i sm .

( 1 ) , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , m a k e s a d i re c t r e fe r e n c e t o h i m , o r t o u s e A r t h u r

P r i o r 's t e r m , is d i r e c t l y a b o u t ' I h i m . N o w i t is n o t e a s y t o s a y j u s t w h a t

direc t aboutness i s

o r w h e n a p r o p o s i t io n i s d i r e c t ly a b o u t a n o b j e c t ; a n d f o r

o u r p u r p o s e s i t i s n ' t c r u c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t . I n s t e a d o f t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n t h a t

no t i on , I s hal l s a y tha t a p r opo s i t i on d i r e c t l y a b ou t s o m e ob j e c t i s a singular

p r o p o s i t i o n a n d g i v e s o m e e x a m p l e s : Bu ck le y i s w ise , e i ther Bu ck ley i s w ise

or 2 + 1 = 3 , poss ib ly B uc k le y i s w ise , i t s n o t the case tha t Bu ck ley i s w ise ,

som e one is w ise r t han Buc k le y , Sam be li ev e s tha t Buc k le y i s w i se a n d poss ib l y

B u c k l e y d o e s n o t e x i s t a r e a ll si ngu la r p r opo s i t i ons . I f w e t h i n k o f p r opos i -

t i ons a s ha v i ng c ons t i t ue n t s , w e m a y t h i nk o f a s ingu l ar p r op os i t i on a s one

t ha t ha s e i t he r a t l e a s t one i nd i v idua l o r a t l e a s t one qu i dd i t a t i ve p r o pe r t y a s

a c o n s t i t u e n t . A n d t h e s e c o n d e x is te n t ia l is t t h e s i s - a c c e p t e d a g a in b y

A d a m s , F i ne , P r i o r a nd o t he r s - i s t h i s : a s ingu l a r p r o po s i t i on i s on t o l og i c a U y

d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e i n d i v id u a ls i t is d i r e c tl y a b o u t . S o i f B u c k l e y h a d n o t

e x i s te d , t h e n , o n t h i s v i e w , n o n e o f t h e a b o v e p r o p o s i t i o n s w o u l d h a v e s o

m u c h a s s e en t h e l i g h t o f d a y .

E x i s t e n t i a l i s m , t he r e f o r e , i s t he c l a i m t ha t qu i dd i t a t i ve p r ope r t i e s a nd

s i ngu l a r p r opos i t i ons a r e on t o l og i c a l l y de pe nde n t upon t he i nd i v i dua l s t he y

i n v o lv e . 2 I d o n ' t k n o w w h e t h e r c o n t i n e n t a l

A n g s t

w o u l d b e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

r e a c t i on t o t he t r u t h o f e x i s t e n ti a l is m , i f i nde e d i t w e r e t r ue , bu t i n a ny

e ve n t I p r opos e t o a r gue t ha t i t i s f a l s e . F i r s t , how e ve r , w e m us t t r y t o ge t a

s e nse o f w h a t i t i s t ha t l e a ds pe op l e t o a c c e p t e x i s te n t i a l is m .

I I W HY AC C E PT E XI ST E NT I AL I SM?

I w i s h t o c ons i de r t w o l ine s o f a r gu m e n t f o r e x is t e n t ia l i s m , one f o r e a c h o f

t he t w o c ha r a c t e r i s ti c e x i s te n t i a l is t t he s e s. Bu t f i r st w e m us t b r i e f l y t a ke n o t e

o f a d o c t r i n e p r e s u p p o s e d b y b o t h l i n e s o f a r g u m e n t . A s w e h a v e l e a r n e d a t

o u r m o t h e r ' s k n e e s , M e i n o n g a n d h i s c o h o r t s h e l d t h a t i n a d d i t io n t o a ll t h e


4/20


t hi ng s t h a t e x i s t - h o u s e s , h o rs e s, m e n a n d m i c e - t h e re ar e s o m e m o r e

t h i n g s - g o ld e n m o u n t a i n s a n d r o u n d s q u ar es , p e r h a p s - th a t d o n o t . I v e

a r gue d e l s e whe r e3 tha t t h i s c la im is mi s t a ke n ; he r e l e t s j u s t a g r e e , f o r p u r pose s

o f a r gu me n t , t ha t t he c l a im i s f al s e. Le t s a g r e e t ha t t he r e n e i the r a r e no r

c o u l d h a v e b e e n a n y n o n e x i s t e n t o b j e c ts ; i t s a n e c es s a ry t r u t h t h a t t h e r e

a r e n t a ny . Th i s v i e w is som e t ime s c a l l ed a c tua l i sm ; I sha ll f o l l ow th i s

c u s t o m , b u t w i t h a caveat. Ae tua l i sm is a mi s l e a d ing na m e f o r t he v i e w in

ques t ion ; i t sugges ts the idea tha t wha tever i s , i s actual. But tha t i s f a l se .

Th e r e a r e m a ny s t a te s o f af f a ir s - : f o r e xa m ple Lon don s being smaller than

Los A nge l e s - t ha t d o n t o b t a i n , a r e n o t a c tu a l . O f c o u r s e th e s e u n a c t u a l

s ta te s of a f fa i r s

exist all

r i gh t - t he y e x i s t j u s t a s r obu s t ly as yo u r mos t

so l id ly a c tua l s t a te o f a ff a ir s . B u t t he y a r e n t a c tua l . S o the r e a r e a ny nu m be r

o f t h i n g s t h a t a r e n t a c t u a l; w h a t t h e r e a r e n t a n y o f is th i ng s t h a t d o n t exist .

E x i s t e n ti a li s m w o u l d b e a b e t t e r s o b r i q u e t fo r t h e v i e w i n q u e s t io n , b u t o f

c ou r se t ha t na m e ha s a lr e a dy be e n p r e e m pte d ; so a c tua l i sm will ha ve to do .

A n d l e t s u s e serious a c tua l i sm a s a na me f o r t he c l a im tha t ne c e s sa r il y , no

o b j e c t c o u l d h a v e h a d a p r o p e r t y o r s t o o d i n a r e l a ti o n w i t h o u t e x is t in g -

t h e v i e w , t h a t i s, t h a t n o t h i n g h a s a n y p r o p e r t ie s i n a n y w o r l d in w h i c h i t

doe s no t e x i s t .

No w suppose we r e tu r n to e x i s t e n ti a li sm. W e m igh t i n it i a ll y be i nc l ine d to

r e j e c t i t by a rgu ing tha t s ingu la r p r opos i t i ons a nd qu idd i t a t i ve p r ope r t i e s a r e

a bs t r a c t ob j e c t s a nd the r e f o r e e x i s t ne c e s sa ri l y . B u t no t a l l a bs t r a c t ob j e c t s

a re n e c e s s a ry b e in g s ; s et s w i t h c o n t i n g e n t m e m b e r s , f o r e x a m p l e a re n o t -

no t , a t l e a s t , i f s e r ious a c tua l ism is c o r r e c t . F o r i f i t is , t he n i f Qu ine ha d no t

e x i s te d , Q u i n e s s i n gl e to n w o u l d n o t h a v e c o n t a i n e d h i m . B u t s u r e ly Q u i n e s

s i n g le t o n c o u l d n o t h a v e e x i s t e d b u t b e e n e m p t y ( in w h i c h e a se it w o u l d h a v e

b e e n t h e n u l l s e t ) ; n e i t h e r c o u l d i t h a v e c o n t a i n e d s o m e t h i n g d i s t i n c t f r o m

Quine . Containing Quine and containing nothing distinct from Qulne are

su r e ly e s se n t i al p r ope r t i e s o f Qu ine s s ing l e ton ; he n c e the r e i s no poss ib l e

wo r ld i n wh ic h i t e x i s t s bu t h e doe s no t . Q u ine s s ing l eton , t he n , is j u s t a s

c on t ing e n t a s is Q u ine h imse l f . And o f c o u r se t he s a me goe s f o r o the r s e ts

t h a t c o n t a i n h i m . I f Q u i n e h a d n o t e x i s te d , th e s e t i n f a c t d e n o t e d b y t h e

p h r a se t h e s e t o f h u m a n b e i n g s w o u l d n o t h a v e e x i s te d . O f c o u r s e t h a t

p h ra s e w o u l d h a ve d e n o t e d a s e t , ev e n i f Q u i n e h a d n o t e x i s t e d - b u t a

different se t .

S o no t a ll a bs t r a c t ob j e c t s a r e ne c e s sa ry beings. S t il l, w ha t a bo u t p r ope r -

t i e s? I t is na tu r a l t o t h ink , i nde e d , t h a t a c r uc ia l d i f f e r e nc e be tw e e n se t s a nd


5/20

ON EXI STENTI ALI SM

properties lies just here. Sets are ontologically dependent upon their members;

hence a set with a contingent member is itself contingent. But properties with

contingent exemplification typically aren't ontologically dependent upon

those exemplifications. The set of dogs - the set that is in fact the set of dogs

- would not have existed had my dog Mischa or any other dog failed to exist;

but the property being a dog can get by perfectly well whether or not there

are any dogs at all. Why suppose it is any different with quidditative proper-

ties?

Robert Adams offers an argument: to be the property of being identical

with a particular individual is to stand in a unique relationship to that in-

dividual .. .. So if there were a thisness of a non-actual individual, it would

stand in a relation to that individual. But according to actualism non-actual

individuals cannot enter into any relations. It seems to follow that according

to actualism there cannot be a thisness of a non-actual individual. 4 But this

statement of the issue isn't wholly accurate. The question isn't whether there

are thisnesses of non-actual, i.e., nonexistent individuals -o f course there

aren't , because there aren't any nonexistent individuals. In the same way

there aren't any shapes of nonexistent individuals - i.e., no shape is the shape

of a nonexistent individual. The question is rather whether any thisness could

have existed if what it is the thisness of had not. The question is whether, for

example, my thisness could have existed if I hadn't . Of course if I hadn' t

existed, the property that is in fact my thisness wouldn' t have been my this-

ness; it would not have been related to me by the relation

being th e thisness

o f

But it doesn't follow that it cou ldn't have existed if I hadn' t. If I hadn't

existed, my brother-in-law would not have been my brother-in-law; he would

not have had the property of being related to me by the brother-in-law rela-

tion. But it doesn't follow that he couldn't have existed if I hadn't. Having

that property is not essential to him; he could have existed whether or not I

had. And of course the question about me and my thisness is whether the

property of being exemplified by me is essential to it. Since we are given that

the property being exempli f ied by me i /at al l is essential to it , the real ques-

tion is whether being exemplif ied is essential to it: and it isn 't in the least

obvious that it

is

Adams holds that an object may have a

qualitative

essence

an essence that doesn' t involve a thisness - and the qualitative essence -

an essence that doesn' t involve a thisness - and the qualitative essence o f an

object, he thinks, would have existed even if the object hadn't . Of course if I


6/20

6

L V IN P L N T IN G

h a d n o t e x i s te d , m y q u a l it a ti v e e s s e nc e w o u l d n ' t h a v e b e e n m y q u a l it a ti v e

e s se n c e ; i t w o u l d n ' t h a v e b e e n r e l a te d t o m e b y t h e

is-the-qualitative-essence-

o f

r e l a t i on . Bu t i t c ou l d ha ve e x i s t e d e ve n i f I ha dn ' t . W hy s upp os e th i ngs a r e

d i f f e r e n t i n t he c a s e o f m y t h is ne s s?

T a k e n a s a n a r g um e n t , t he r e f o r e , t he a bov e c ons i de r a t ions a r e i nc onc l u si ve .

I s u s p e c t, h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e y a r e n ' t r e a l l y i n t e n d e d a s a n a rg u m e n t ; t h e y a r e

m or e l ike a n a ppe a l t o i n t u i t i on . I s n ' t i t j u s t c l e a r o r obv i ous t ha t t he p r op e r -

t y being Socrates c o u l d n o t h a v e e x i s te d i f S o c r a te s h a d n o t e x i s t e d ? W h a t

w o u l d m y t h i s n e s s h a v e

been

i f I h a d n ' t e x i st e d ? B u t it d o e s n ' t s e e m t o m e ,

o n r e f l e c t io n , t o b e t h e l e a st b i t o b v i o u s . A n d w o u l d m y t h is n e ss h a v e b e e n , i f

I h a d n ' t e x i s t e d ? I t w o u l d h a v e b e e n a n u n e x e m p l i f i e d e s s e n c e t h a t c o u l d

h a v e b e e n t h e t h is n e ss o f s o m e t h i n g .

I t u r n no w t o t he l i ne o f a r gum e n t f o r t he s e c o nd e x i s t e n t ia l is t t he si s -

t he t he s i s t ha t s i ngu l a r p r opos i t i ons a r e on t o l og i c a l l y de pe nde n t upon t he

ob j e c t s t he y a r e d i r e c t ly a bo u t . C ons i de r aga i n

(1) W i ll iam F . B uck ley i s w i se

a n d

( 2 ) T h e L i o n o f Cons e r va t i v i s m i s w i s e .

O n t he v i e w in que s t i on ( 1 ) c ou l d ha ve f a i le d t o e x i s t , a nd w o u l d ha ve don e

s o i f B u c k l e y h a d n o t e x i s te d . ( 2 ) , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is q u i te i m p e r v i o u s t o

t he ha r r ow i ng v i c i s s i t ude s be s e t t i ng c on t i nge n t ob j e c t s , a nd w ou l d ha ve

e x i s t e d n o m a t t e r w h a t . W h y t h e d i f f e r e n c e?

O n e l i n e o f a r g u m e n t , o r at a n y r a te o n e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e te r m i n i n g th e

i n t e l l e c t , t o u s e J oh n S t ua r t M i l l 's ph r a s e , goe s a s fo l l ow s . I t i s p l a us ib l e t o

j o i n M ill i n s u p p o s in g t h a t P r o p e r N a m e s a r e n o t c o n n o t a t i v e ; t h e y d e n o t e

t h e i n di v id u a ls w h o a r e c a ll ed b y t h e m , b u t t h e y d o n o t i n d i ca t e o r i m p l y an

a t t r i bu t e a s be l ong i ng t o t he s e i nd i v i dua l s , s P r op e r na m e s , sa ys M i ll, h a ve

d e n o t a t i o n b u t n o c o n n o t a t i o n : a p r o p e r n a m e d e n o t e s it s r e f e r e n t b u t d o e s

n o t e x p r e s s a p r o p e r t y . H e s e em s t o m e a n t h a t t h e so le s e m a n t i c f u n c t i o n

p e r f o r m e d b y a p r o p e r n a m e i s t h a t o f d e n o t i n g i ts r e f e re n t ; i t s s e m a n t i c

f unc t i on i s exhausted i n de no t i ng i t s r e f e r e n t . T he f i r s t p r e m i s s o f t h i s a r gu -

m e n t , t h e n , i s t h a t p r o p e r n a m e s d o n o t e x p r e ss p r o p e r t ie s . T h e se c o n d

p r e m i s s i s t he p l a us i b l e v i e w t ha t s e n t e nc e s c on t a i n i ng p r ope r na m e s do i n

f a c t e xp r e s s p r opos i t i ons . A nd t he t h i r d p r e m i s s is t ha t a p r o pos i t i on is a n

a r t i c u l a t e d s t r uc t u r e c on t a i n i ng

constituents

s t a nd i ng i n r e l a t i on t o e a c h


7/20

ON EXISTENTIALISM

o t h e r . I t s n o t a t a ll c le a r w h a t a c o n s t i tu e n t o f a p r o p o s i t i o n is s u p p o s e d t o

b e ; b u t a m o n g t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s o f t h e p r o p o s i t io n

a l l m e n a re m o r t a l

o n e

w o u l d f i n d , p r e s u m a b l y , t h e p r o p e r t i e s h u m a n i t y a n d m o r t a l it y

N o w s u p p o s e y o u a c c e p t t h e se t h r e e p re m i s s es : w h a t s o r t o f p r o p o s i t i o n

w i l l be e xp r e s s e d by a s e n t e nc e l i ke ( 1 ) i f t he p r ope r na m e i t c on t a i n s doe s

n o t e x p r e ss a p r o p e r t y ? W h a t w o u l d b e th e c o n s t i t u e n t s o f s u c h a p r o p o s i -

t i on - w h a t w o u l d be , s o t o s p e a k , i ts s ub j e c t- p l a c e c on s t i t ue n t ? W ha t m or e

n a t u r a l t h a n t o t a k e W i ll ia m F . B u c k l e y h im s e l f , t h a t f u g l e m a n o f t h e r i g h t,

a s a c on s t i t ue n t o f t he p r op os i t i on e xp r e s s e d b y ( 1 ) ? O n t h i s v i e w , s i ngu la r

p r opos i t i ons i nc l ude a m ong t he i r c ons t i t ue n t s no t j u s t a b s t r a c t a , s uc h a s

B u c k l e y s e s s e n ce , b u t c o n c r e t a , s u c h a s B u c k l e y h i m s e l f. I f o n e h o l d s t h a t

p r o p o s i t i o n s h a v e c o n s t it u e n t s , t h a t p r o p e r n a m e s d o n o t e x p r e ss p r o p e r t i e s ,

a n d t h a t s e n te n c e s c o n t a in i n g t h e m e x p r es s p r o p o s i t i o n s , th e n t h e v i e w t h a t

s uc h p r o pos i t i on s c o n t a i n c onc r e t e ob j e c t s as c ons t i t ue n t s c a n se e m qu i t e

c om pe l l i ng .

N o w t h o s e w h o t h i n k t h a t p r o p o s i t io n s h a v e c o n s t i t u e n t s, t h i n k o f th e

c ons t i t ue nc y r e l a t i on a s e s s e n t i a l t o t he c ons t i t u t e e , bu t no t , i n t he ge ne r a l

c a s e , t o t he c ons t i t ue n t ; t ha t i s, i f a i s a c on s t i t ue n t o f b , t he n b c ou l dn t

e x i s t w i t ho u t ha v i ng a a s a c on s t i t ue n t , a l t houg h i t is no t t r ue i n gene r a l t h a t

b c o u l d n o t h a v e e x i s t ed w i t h b e i n g a c o n s t it u e n t o f a . B o t h W i ll ia m F .

B u c k l e y a n d P a u l X . Z w i e r a r e c o n s t i t u e n t s o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n P a u l Z w i e r

is m o r e c o n s e r v a ti v e t h a n W i l li am B u c k l e y ; s o i f e i t h e r o f t h e m h a d f a il e d t o

e x i st , t h e s a m e f a t e w o u l d h a v e b e f a l l en t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n . O b v i o u s l y , h o w e v e r ,

B u c k l e y c o u l d h a v e e x i s t e d e v e n i f Z w i e r h a d n t ; a c c o r d in g l y B u c k l e y c o u l d

h a v e e x i s te d e v e n i f t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n h a d n t . A n d h e n c e ( g iv e n se r io u s a c t u al -

i s m ) b e i n g a c o n s t i t u e n t o f i t is n o t e s se n ti a l t o h i m . S o t h e f o u r t h p r e m i s s o f

t he a r gu m e n t i s: i f a c onc r e t e ob j e c t O i s a c on s t i t ue n t o f a p r op os i t i on P ,

t h e n P is o n t o lo g i c aU y d e p e n d e n t u p o n O . T o s u m m a r i z e t h e a r g u m e n t , th e n :

s e n te n c e s c o n t a i n in g p r o p e r n a m e s e x p r e ss p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t h a v e c o n c r e t e

a nd c on t i ng e n t ob j e c t s a s c ons t i t ue n t s . Bu t t he c ons t i t ue n c y r e l a t ion i s

e s se n ti al t o t h e c o n s t i t u t e d o b j e c t ; h e n c e s in g u la r p r o p o s i t i o n s - m a n y o f

t h e m , a t a n y r a t e - a r e o n t o l o g i c a ll y d e p e n d e n t u p o n c o n t i n g e n t i n d iv i d ua ls .

N o w I t h i nk t h i s is a t be s t a w e a k a r gum e n t f o r t he e x i s t e n t ia l i st the s is i n

que s t i on ; a nd i t s w e a kn e s s r e su l t s f r o m t he obs c u r i t y o f t he p r e m i s s e s i n -

v o l v i n g t h e n o t i o n o f

c o n s t i t u e n c y

W h a t e x a c t l y , o r e v e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y ,

i s

t h i s r e l a t i ons h i p b e i n g a c o n s t i t u e n t 03~ D o w e k n o w o r h a v e r e a so n t o

s u s p e c t t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n s h a v e c o n s t i t u e n t s ? W h a t c a n w e s a y a b o u t t h e


8/20

8 A L V I N P L A N T I N G A

r e la t io n t h a t h o l d s b e t w e e n a n o b j e c t - a c o n c e p t , p r o p e r t y , c o n c r e te in -

d i v id u a l o r w h a t e v e r - a n d a p r o p o s i t i o n , w h e n t h e f o r m e r is a c o n s t i t u e n t o f

t h e l a tt e r ? M a y b e n o t m u c h . S o m e p h i l o s o p h e r s s u gg e st t h a t t h e so r t o f

p r o p o s i t i o n e x p r e s s ed b y s e n t e n c es l ik e ( 1 ) c a n b e

r e p r e s e n t e d b y

o r

t a k e n a s

a s e t - th e o r e t i c a l e n t i t y o f s o m e s o r t - a n o r d e r e d p a i r , p e r h a p s , w h o s e f i rs t

m e m b e r is W i ll ia m F . B u c k l e y a n d w h o s e s e c o n d is t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e in g

w i s e . O f c o u r s e i f t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n

w e r e

s u c h a n o r d e r e d p a i r , t h e n p e r h a p s

w e c o u l d s a y w h a t i ts c o n s t it u e n t s w e r e : p e r h a p s t h e y w o u l d b e t h e m e m b e r s

o f i ts t r a n si ti v e c l o s u re . P r e s u m a b l y , h o w e v e r , t h e c l ai m is n o t t h a t s u c h p r o -

p o s i t i o n s r e a l l y a r e o r d e r e d p a ir s, b u t o n l y t h a t w e c a n f it ti n g l y r e p r e s e n t o r

t a k e

t h e m a s s u c h , i n t h e w a y i n w h i c h f o r s o m e p u r p o s e s w e c a n ta k e t h e

n a t u r a l n u m b e r s a s s e ts o f o n e k i n d o r a n o t h e r . W e h a v e im b i b e d w i t h o u r

m o t h e r s m i l k t h e i d ea th a t w e c an i d e n t i f y t h e n a t u ra l n u m b e r s w i t h a n y

o f v a r i o u s s e q u e n c e s o f s ets . W e c a n a ls o i d e n t i f y t h e m w i t h o t h e r t h in g s :

f o r e x a m p l e , w e c o u l d i d e n t i f y z e r o w i t h R i c h a r d W a g n e r a n d t h e r e s t o f

t h e n a t u r a l n u m b e r s w i t h p r o p o s i t i o n s a b o u t h i m : W a g n e r h a s w r i t t e n j u s t

o n e o p e r a W a g n er h a s w r i t t e n j u s t t w o o p er a s

a n d s o o n . A l l w e n e e d f o r

s u c h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a c o u n t a b l y i n f in i t e s e t o f o b j e c t s to g e t h e r w i t h a

r e cu r si v e r e la t i o n u n d e r w h i c h t h e y f o r m a p ro g r e s s io n . B u t o f c o u r s e t h e

f a c t t h a t n a t u r a l n u m b e r s c a n b e t h u s i d e n ti fi e d w i t h s e ts o f o n e s o r t o r

a n o t h e r d o e s n t a t a ll i m p l y t h a t t h e y r e a ll y a r e s e ts , o r h a v e a s c o n s t i t u e n t s

t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e s ets w i t h w h i c h w e i d e n ti f y th e m . A n d t h e s a m e h o l d s

f o r P r o p o s i ti o n s a n d o r d e r e d p a ir s o f th e s o r t m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . P e r h a p s

f o r s o m e p u r p o s e s w e c a n i d e n t i f y t h e f o r m e r w i t h t h e l a tt e r ; b u t it d o e s n t

f o l l o w t h a t t h e f o r m e r h a v e a s c o n s t i t u e n t s t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e l a tt e r . I t is

t h e r e f o r e h a r d t o s e e t h a t t h e a b o v e s u g g e s t i o n - t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t s i n g u l ar

p r o p o s i t io n s c a n b e r e p r e s e n t e d o r t a k e n a s c e r t ai n s e ts - t h r o w s a n y li g h t

o n t h e c o n s t i t u e n c y r e l a ti o n .

O f c o u r s e t h e r e c l e a r l y i s a n i n t e re s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e p r o p o s i -

t i o n

A l l m e n a r e m o r t a l

a n d t h e p r o p e r t i e s

b e i n g a m a n a n d b e i n g m o r t a l -

a r e la t io n s h i p t h a t d o e s n t h o l d b e t w e e n t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n a n d , s a y , t h e

n u m b e r 7 o r th e T aj M a h al o r th e p r o p e r t y o f b ei n g a h o r s e. A n d n o d o u b t

w e h a v e s o m e t h i n g o f a g ra s p - i n c h o a t e a n d g r o p i n g a s i t m a y b e - o f th i s

r e la t io n . S o , f o r e x a m p l e , w e c a n g r as p e n o u g h o f t h e r e l a ti o n in q u e s t i o n t o

s ee t h a t a p r o p o s i t i o n c o u l d n t b e a c o n s t i t u e n t o f a p e r s o n . B u t c o u l d a

p e r s o n b e a c o n s t i t u e n t o f a p r o p o s i t i o n ? I f f ee l a s i f I h a v e a g ra s p o f th i s

n o t i o n o f c o n s t i t u e n c y w h e n I m t o l d t h a t , s a y , w i s d o m b u t n o t b e a u t y i s a


9/20

O N E X I S T E N T I A L I S M 9

c o n s t i t u e n t o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n

Socrates is wise

b u t w h e n i t i s a d d e d t h a t

S oc r a t e s h i m s e l f i s a l so a c ons t i t ue n t o f t ha t p r opo s i t i on , I be g i n t o l o s e m y

s en s e o f w h a t s b e in g t a l k e d a b o u t . I f a n a b s t r a c t o b j e c t li k e a p r o p o s i t i o n h a s

c o n s t i tu e n t s , w o u l d n t t h e y t h e m s e l v e s h a v e t o b e a b s t r a c t?

B u t s e c o n d l y : i f w e r e p r e p a r e d t o s u p p o s e s o m e t h i n g a s i n it ia l ly outrd as

t h a t p e r s o n s c a n b e c o n s t i t u e n t s o f p r o p o s i t i o n s , w h y in s is t t h a t a p r o p o s i -

t i o n i s o n to l o g i c a ll y d e p e n d e n t u p o n i ts c o n s t it u e n t s ? W h y b o g g le a t th e

i de a t h a t a p r opo s i t i on c o u l d e x i s t e ve n i f one o f i ts c on s t i t ue n t s d i d n t ?

P e r h a p s t h e p r o p o s i t i o n e x p r e s se d b y ( 1 ) h a s B u c k l e y a s a c o n s t i t u e n t b u t

w o u l d h a v e e x i s te d e v e n i f h e h a d n o t . I f i t h a d , p e r h a p s it w o u l d h a v e b e e n

s l igh t ly i ll - f o r m e d o r e ve n m a i m e d ; b u t c ou l dn t i t e x i s t none t he l e s s ?

T h i s a r g um e n t , t he r e f o r e , i s i nc onc l u s ive . I t s n o t a t a ll c l e a r w ha t i s be i ng

c l a i m e d w he n i ts c l a i m e d t ha t p r opo s i t i ons ha ve c ons t i t ue n t s . I n s o f a r a s w e

h a v e a g r a sp o f t h a t n o t i o n , h o w e v e r , i t is v e r y h a r d t o s ee h o w a p e r s o n

c o u l d b e a c o n s t i t u e n t o f a p r o p o s i t i o n . A n d e v e n i f p r o p o s i t i o n s d o c o n ta i n

pe r s ons a s c ons t i t ue n t s , w hy s uppos e t h a t c on t a i n i ng a g i ven pe r s on a s

c ons t i t ue n t i s essential t o a p r o p o s i t i o n ?

I II . A N A N T I - E X I S T E N T I A L I S T A R G U M E N T

I w a n t t o p r o p o s e a n a r g u m e n t a g a in s t e x i s t e n t i a l i s m - s p e ci fi c al ly , a n

a r gum e n t a ga i n s t t he e x i s t e n t i a l i s t t he s i s t ha t s i ngu l a r p r opos i t i ons a r e on -

t o lo g i c a ll y d e p e n d e n t u p o n c o n t i n g e n t o b j e c ts . T h e a r g u m e n t b e g in s f r o m a n

obv i ou s f a c t . S u r e l y i t s pos s ib l e t ha t S oc r a t e s s hou l d n o t h a ve e x i s t e d ; un l i ke

G od a nd t he nu m be r s e ve n , S oc r a t e s i s no t a ne c e s s a r y be i ng . S o t he p r opo s i -

t i o n possibly Socrates does not exist i s t r ue , a nd t he p r opos i t i on Socrates

does not exist i s pos s i b l e , t ha t i s , pos s i b l y t r ue . Bu t t ha t p r opos i t i on c ou l d

n o t h a v e b e e n t ru e w i t h o u t e x i s ti n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f it h a d b e e n t r u e , S o c r a te s

w o u l d n o t h a v e e x i s te d . I f it h a d b e e n t r u e , t h e r e f o r e , i t w o u l d h av e e x i s te d

bu t S oc r a t e s w ou l d no t ha ve e x i s te d . I t i s t he r e f o r e pos s i b l e t ha t t he p r opos i -

t i o n Socrates does not exist e x i st w h e n S o c r at e s d o e s n o t - c o n t r a r y t o t h e

c l a i m s o f e x i s t e n t i a l i s m , a c c o r d i ng t o w h i c h t ha t p r opos i t i on ha s S oc r a t e s

a s a c o n s t it u e n t a n d h e n c e i s o n t o l o g i c al ly d e p e n d e n t u p o n h i m .

T i d y i n g u p t h e a r g u m e n t a b i t , w e c a n s ee i t a s p r o c e e d i n g f r o m t h e

fo l lowing f ive prem is ses :

( 3 ) P os s i b ly S oc r a t e s doe s no t e x i s t


10/20

1 0 A L V I N P L A N T I N G A

4 )

5 )

6 )

a n d

7 )

I f (3 ) t h e n t h e p r o p o s i t io n S o c r a t es d o e s n o t e x i s t is possible .

I f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n S o c r a t e s d o e s n o t e x i s t is possible , then i t is

pos s ib ly t r ue .

Necessa r i ly , i f S o c r a t e s d o e s n o t e x i s t h a d b e e n t r u e , t h e n S o c r a t e s

d o e s n o t e x i s t wo uld ha ve e x i s t e d .

Necessa r i ly i f

S o c r a te s d o e s n o t e x i s t

h a d b e e n t r u e , t h e n S o c r at e s

w o u l d n o t h a v e e x is t e d .

F r o m ( 3 ) , (4 ) a n d ( 5 ) i t f o l lo w s t h a t

(8)

S o c r a t e s d o e s n o t e x i s t

i s poss ib ly t rue ,

i .e ., t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n c o u l d h a v e b e e n t r u e ; f r o m ( 6 ) a n d ( 7 ) i t f o l lo w s t h a t

(9) Necessa r i ly , i f S o c r a t e s d o e s n o t e x i s t h a d b e e n t r u e , t h e n S o c r a t e s

d o e s n o t e x i s t

w o u l d h a v e e x is t e d a n d S o c r at e s w o u l d n o t h a v e

e x i s t e d ;

a n d f r o m ( 8 ) a n d ( 9 ) fo l lo w s t h a t

( 10 ) I t is pos sib le t ha t bo th S oc r a t e s doe s no t e x i s t a nd the p r opos i -

t i o n S o c r a t e s d o e s n o t e x i s t exists ,

wh ic h c on t r a d i c t s e x i s te n t ia l i sm.

No w I t a ke i t t ha t p r emis ses ( 3 ) a n d ( 7 ) a r e r e la t i ve ly unc on t r ove r s i a l ; so

the c on t r ove r s i a l p r e mis se s , i f a ny , a r e ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) a nd ( 6 ) . ( 4 ) , I t h ink , i s t he

ne x t l e a s t c on t r ove r s i a l p r e mis s . I t ha s be e n de n ie d , howe ve r by La wr e nc e

P owe r s .6 P o w e r s i a n E x i s t e n t i a l i s m , a c c o r d ing ly , is t he so r t o f e x i s t e n t i a li sm

tha t r e j e c ts ( 4 ) . W ha t c a n be s aid f o r t ha t r e j e c t ion? No w o f c ou r se we mus t

g r a n t t ha t pos s ib ly i n ( 3 ) is a n ope r a to r r a the r t ha n a p r e d i c a t e ; a nd we

m us t a lso g r a n t t ha t c e r t a in na tu r a l wa ys o f f o r ma l i z ing the a t t e m p t t o c o ns t r ue

the m oda l ope r a to r s a s p r e d i c a t e s o f s e n t e nc e s , r a p id ly c om e to g r ie f . S t il l

( 4 ) i s su r e ly no t p r ope r ly r e j e c t a b l e . S uppose we a g r e e t ha t t he r e a r e suc h

th ings a s p r opos i t i ons a nd tha t p r opos i t i ons a r e t he t h ings t ha t a r e t r ue o r

fa lse . (We can say tha t a s e n t e n c e is t r ue i f it e xp r e s se s a t rue p r opo s i t i on . )

Th e n su r e ly we w i ll r e ga r d t r u t h a nd f a l s e hood a s p r ope r t i e s o f p r opos i t i ons .

F u r t h e r m o r e , s u c h a p r o p o s i t i o n a s

I t s t r u e t h a t a l l m e n a r e m o r t a l

i s t rue i f

a n d o n l y i f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l l m e n a r e m o r t a l i s t r ue - de sp i t e t he f a c t t ha t


11/20

ON E XI ST E NT I L I SM 11

I t ' s t r u e t h a t is a n o p e r a t o r , n o t a p r e d i c a te . N o w s u re l y t h e s a m e g o e s f o r

( 11 ) P oss ib ly S oc r a t e s doe s no t e x i s t .

P os s ib i li t y , obv ious ly , is a p r op e r ty o f p r op os i t i ons ; i t is an a l e th i c m oda l i t y ,

a m o d e o f t r u t h . H o w c o u l d ( 1 1 ) b e t r u e i f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n

Socrates does not

exist we r e no t pos s ib l e ? W ha t p r opos i t i on w ou ld th e s e n t e nc e ( I 1 ) e xp r e s s ,

i f i t d id n ' t e xp r e s s one e n t a i l ing tha t Socrates does not exist is possible?

( 11 ) , su r e ly , i s t r ue i f a nd on ly i f Socrates does not exist i s poss ib le . So (4)

shou ld be a c c e p te d a nd P ow e r s ia n e x i s t e n t ia l i sm r e j e c t e d .

( 6 ) , I t h ink , i s t he n e x t l e a s t c on t r ove r s i a l p r e mis s ; a c c o r d ing to ( 6 ) ,

Socrates does not exist is suc h tha t i t c o u ldn ' t ha ve be e n tr ue w i tho u t e x i s t-

i n g . A n o t h e r w a y t o p u t t h e s a m e p o i n t : 'Socrates does not exist' is true

enta i l s 'Socrates does not exist exists. S t i l l a n o t h e r w a y t o p u t i t : e v e r y

poss ib l e wor ld i n wh ic h Socrates does not exist i s t rue , i s one in which i t

e x i s ts . Th i s p r e mis s ha s be e n de n ie d , a t l e a st p r ov i s iona l ly , by Jo hn P o l loc k ;

P o l loc k ia n Ex i s t e n t i a li sm, t he r e f o r e , is t he so r t o f e x i s te n t i a li sm tha t de n ie s

6 ) .

Now ( 6 ) i s r e a l ly a spe c i f i c a t ion o f serious actualisrn - t h e v i e w t h a t n o

ob je c t c ou ld ha ve ha d a p r o pe r ty w i tho u t e x i s ti ng . S t a t e d a l t e r na t ive ly ,

s e r ious a c tua l i sm is t he v i e w tha t ne c e s sa ri l y , f o r a ny ob je c t x a nd p r op e r ty

P , i t ' s no t pos s ib l e t ha t x shou ld ha ve ha d P b u t no t e x i s t e d . S t a t e d in t e r ms

o f pos s ib l e w or ld s , s e rious a c tua l i sm i s t he v i e w tha t ne c e s sa ri l y no ob je c t ha s

a p r ope r ty i n a wor ld i n wh ic h i t doe s no t e x i s t ; t ha t i s , i t i s ne c e s sa r y tha t

f o r a n y p o s s ib le w o r l d W a n d p r o p e r t y P a n d o b j e c t x , i f it i s t r ue t ha t i f W

h a d b e e n a c t u al , t h e n x w o u l d h a v e h a d P , t h e n i t is t r u e th a t i f W h a d b e e n

a c tua l , x wou ld ha ve e x i s t e d . As ou r o f f i c i a l s t a t e me n t o f s e r ious a c tua l i sm,

l e t 's a d o p t

( 12 ) Ne c e s sa ri ly f o r a ny ob je c t x , pos s ib l e wor ld W , a nd p r o pe r ty P ,

i f x ha s P in W , the n x e x i s ts in W ,

wh e r e a n o b je c t x ha s a p r o pe r ty P in a wo r ld W i f a nd on ly i f i t is no t pos s ib l e

tha t W be a c tua l a nd x f a il t o ha ve P .

No w i t m a y be t e m p t ing to suppose 7 t ha t s e r ious a c tua l i sm i s a c o r o l l a r y

o f a c tua li sm tout court. F o r suppose , i n a c c o r d w i th a c tua li sm, t ha t

( 1 3 ) T h e r e a re n o n o n e x i s t e n t o b j e c t s

is ne c e s sa ri l y tr ue a nd he nc e t r ue i n e v e r y poss ib l e wo r ld . Th e n the s a me c a n


12/20


be sa id for

( 1 4 ) F o r a n y p r o p e r t y P , t h e r e a re n o n o n e x i s t e n t o b j e c t s t h a t h a v e P ,

tha t i s

( 15 ) W ha te ve r ha s P , e x i s ts .

N o w c o n s i d er S o c r a t es , a n d l e t P b e a n y p r o p e r t y a n d W b e a n y w o r l d in

w h i c h S o c ra t es h a s P . T h e n

( 16 ) S oc r a t e s ha s P

is t ru e in W; since (15 ) is a lso t ru e in W, so is

(17) Socra tes ex is t s .

B u t t he n i t f o l l ows tha t i f S oc r a t e s ha s a p r op e r ty P in a w or ld W , S oc r a t e s

exis t s in W; and o f course the same goes for eve ry th ing e lse .

No w I s a id i t wa s t e m p t ing thus t o i n f e r s e rious a c tua li sm f r om a c tua l i sm;

bu t t he a bove a r gume n t r e p r e se n ts a t be s t a b i t o f f l oc c u le n t t h ink ing . W e c a n

see th is a s fo l lows . I f ac tua l i sm is t rue , th en

( 18 ) W ha te ve r doe s n o t exis t , ex is t s

i s t r ue i n e ve r y poss ib l e wo r ld ; f e w wo u ld be t e m p te d to i n f e r , how e ve r ,

t ha t i f S oc r a t e s do e s no t e x i s t i n a wo r ld W *, t he n he e x i s t s i n t ha t w or ld .

The t r oub le w i th t he a r gum e n t , obv iou s ly , i s t he f o l lowing : ( 15 ) i s i nde e d

t r ue in W , a s is ( 16 ) . T o in f e r t ha t ( 17 ) i s t r ue i n W , how e ve r , we m us t suppose

t h a t

( 19 ) I f S oc r a t e s ha s P , t he n S oc r a t e s e x i s ts

i s a lso t r ue t he r e . O ne th inks o f ( 19 ) a s fo l lowing f r om ( 15 ) by Un ive r sa l

I n s t a n t i a t i on . ( 15 ) s a ys t ha t e v e r y th ing the r e i s - e ve r y th ing tha t e x i s t s a nd

e v e r y t h in g e l se a s w e l l, i f t h e r e is a n y t h i n g e l s e - h a s a c e rt a in p r o p e r t y :

b e i n g s u c h t h a t i f i t h a s P , t h e n i t e x i s ts . ( 1 9 ) ( c o n s t r u e d d e r e as S o c r a t e s

is s u c h t h a t i f h e h a s P t h e n h e e x i s t s

sa ys j u s t t h a t S oc r a t e s ha s t he p r op e r ty

( 15 ) s a ys e ve r y th ing the r e i s ha s . B u t t he n c l e a r ly ( 19 ) doe sn t f o l l ow f r om

( 15) a lone . A no th e r p r e mis s i s ne e de d : t he p r e mis s t ha t S oc r a t e s is one o f

the t h ings t he r e a r e . O f c ou r se t h i s p r emis s is t r ue i n f a c t , bu t pe r ha ps i t i sn t

t r ue i n W . S o f r om th e f a c t t ha t ( 1 5 ) i s t r ue i n W we c a nn o t p r o pe r ly i n f e r

that (19) is a lso t rue in I4/ .


13/20

ON EXISTENTI ALISM 3

F r o m a c t u a l i s m t o u t c o u r t t he r e f o r e , we c a nno t p r ope r ly i n f e r s e r ious

ac tua l i sm. The la t te r i s a separa te thes is and requi res separa te a f f i rma t ion .

An d i sn ' t i t j u s t f a ls e ? F o r c ons ide r a ny wo r ld W * in wh ic h S oc r a t e s doe s no t

e x i s t : S oc r a t e s w i ll no t ha ve the p r o pe r ty o f be ing w i se i n W *; so

( 20 ) S oc r a t e s i s no t w i se

i s t r ue i n W *; so S oc r a t e s ha s t he p r o pe r ty o f no t be ing w i se i n W *. B u t o f

c ou r se it wo n ' t f o l l ow tha t he e x i s ts i n W * . I n t he s a me wa y , S oc r a t e s doe s

n o t e x i s t in W * . B u t o f c o u r s e i t d o e s n ' t f o l l o w f ro m t h a t t ha t he e x i s t s i n

W * . T o t a k e a n o t h e r s o r t o f e x a m p l e ,

(21 ) I f Socra tes i s wise , som eon e i s wise

p r e d ic a t e s a p r o pe r ty o f S oc r a t e s : be ing suc h tha t i f he i s w ise som e one i s.

B ut ( 21 ) is a l so ne c e s sa r il y t r ue ; S oc r a t e s , t he r e f o r e , ha s t he p r op e r ty ( 21 )

p r e d ic a t e s o f h im in e ve r y poss ib le wor ld - e ve n those i n wh ic h he doe s no t

ex is t .

B u t t h e a nswe r t o t he se c la ims is de a r ; t he s e n t e nc e s ( 20 ) a nd ( 21 ) a r e

a mbiguou s . ( 20 ) is a mb iguous a s be tw e e n

( 20 *) S oc r a t e s i s unwise ,

a p r o p o s i t io n p r e d i ca t in g o f h i m t h e c o m p l e m e n t o f be ing w i se a n d

( 20 ** ) I t ' s no t t he c ase t ha t S oc r a t es is w i se,

a p r o pos i t i o n t ha t doe sn ' t p r e d i c a t e a ny th in g o f S oc r a te s bu t p r e d i c a t e s fa ls e -

h o o d o f th e p r o p o s i t io n Socrates is wise . ( 2 0 ) , w e m a y s a y , is predica t ive

wi th r e spe c t t o S oc r a t e s ; ( 20**) i s impredica t ive w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i m . A

s imi la r c om m e n t is t o be ma de a b ou t ( 21 ) . The se n t e nc e ( 21 ) i s a mb iguous a s

b e t w e e n

( 2 1 ) S oc r a t e s i s suc h tha t i f he is w i se , som e th ing i s,

a p r op os i t i on tha t is p r e d i c at ive w i th r e spe c t t o S oc r a t e s a nd p r e d ic a t e s o f

h i m t h e w i d e l y s h ar e d p r o p e r t y o f b e i n g s uc h t h a t i f h e i s w i se , t h e n s o m e o n e

i s , a nd a p r o pos i t i on e qu iva l e n t t o

( 2 1 * ) T h e p r o p o s i t io n s Socrates i s w ise and someone i s w ise a re such

tha t i f t he f i rs t is t r ue , t he n so i s t he s e c ond ,

wh ic h i s impr e d ic a t ive w i th r e spe c t t o S oc r a t e s . ( 21 ) i s p r e d i c a t ive w i th


14/20


re spec t to Socra tes , and con t inge nt , be ing fa lse in those poss ib le wo r lds in

wh ic h S oc r a t e s doe s n o t e x i s t . ( 21 * ) , on the o the r ha nd , i s ne c e s sa r y , bu t

d o e s n o t p r e d i c a te a p r o p e r t y o f S o c r a te s . E x a c t l y si m il ar c o m m e n t s a p p l y

t o

(22 ) E i th e r Socra tes i s wise or Socra tes i s no t wise .

( 23 ) i s a mb iguo us a s be tw e e n a c on t ing e n t p r op os i t i on p r e d ic a t ing o f S oc r a t e s

t h e p r o p e r t y be i ng e i t he r w i s e o r no t w i s e , and a ne c e s sa r y p r opos i t i on im-

p r e d ic a t ive w i th r e spe c t t o S oc r a t e s ( bu t p r e d i c a t ive w i th r e spe c t t o t he

p r o p o s i t i o n s Socrates i s wi se a nd i t s n o t t he c as e t ha t Soc r a t e s i s w i s e ) . S o

the p r o f f e r e d e xa mple s c e r t a in ly do n ' t show th a t s e rious a c tua li sm i s f a ls e .

S t i l l , i sn ' t t he r e some th ing a r b i t r a r y a nd a d h o c , i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t ,

a bou t i n s i s t i ng tha t B u c k l e y i s w i s e p r e d ic a t es a p r o p e r t y o f B u c k l e y w h il e

I t s n o t t h e c a s e t h a t B u c k l e y is w i s e doe s no t? No t r e a l ly , I t h ink , a l t hough

ad hoc ne s s

is su f f i c i e n t ly s l i ppe ry to m a ke i t ha r d to be su re . I n a n y e ve n t ,

l e t ' s a g r e e t ha t t he r e a r e c ond i t i ons a s we l l a s p r ope r t i e s . F o r a ny p r ope r ty

P , t he r e is t he c on d i t i on o f ha v ing P , a nd a lso t he c on d i t i on o f no t hav ing

P . C ond i t i ons a r e me t b y ob je c t s , a nd m e t by ob je c t s i n pos sib le wor ld s . To

m e e t t he c on d i t i on o f ha v ing P in W , a n ob je c t mus t ha ve P in W ; to m e e t

t h e c o n d i t i o n o f n o t h a v in g P i n W a n o b j e c t m u s t n o t h a v e P i n W . F u r t h e r -

m o r e , i f a n o b j e c t f a il s to m e e t t h e c o n d i t i o n o f h a v i n g P i n W , t h e n i t m e e t s

the c o nd i t i on o f fa i li ng to ha ve P in W , a l t hough o f c ou r se i t doe sn ' t f o l l ow

tha t i t m e e t s t he c on d i t i on o f ha v ing f f i n W . S t il l f u r the r , t he r e a r e suc h c on -

d i t ions as hav i ng P o r no t hav i ng P , a c o n d i t i o n m e t b y e v e r y th i n g i n e v e r y

poss ib l e wo r ld . The n wh i l e it ma y be the c a se t ha t n o o b je c t ha s a ny p r o p e r t y

i n a n y w o r l d i n w h i c h i t d o e s n o t e x i s t , a n o b j e c t m a y p e r f e c t l y w e l l m e e t

c ond i t i ons i n

wor lds i n wh ic h i t doe s no t e x i s t . And wh i l e s e r ious a c tua l i sm

m a yb e t r u e , f r o m th i s pe r spe c t ive i t l ooks c ons ide r a b ly le ss subs t a n t ia l .

Now th i s ma ne uve r , I t h ink , i s f r u i t l e s s . The r e really is a n i m p o r t a n t

d i s t i nc t ion be tw e e n f a il ing to ha ve a p r o pe r ty P in a wor ld a nd ha v ing i ts

c om ple m e n t i n t ha t w or ld ; f ai li ng to ha ve P in W , f u r the r m or e , is no t hav ing

i f, t h e c o m p l e m e n t o f P i n W , o r i n d e e d a n y o t h e r p r o p e r t y . T h e s e r io u s

a c tua li s t c l a ims tha t a n ob je c t e x i s ts in a n y wo r ld i n wh ic h i t ha s a p r o pe r ty

P , b u t o f c ou r se she doe sn ' t c l a im tha t a n ob je c t e x i s t s i n e ve r y wo r ld i n

wh ic h i t

d o e s n t

ha ve P . F u r th e r m or e , i t i sn 't a t a ll e a sy to s ee wha t so r t o f

th ing a c o n d i t i o n i s, o r t o s t a t e t he c ond i t i ons un de r wh ic h a n ob je c t me e t s a

c o n d i t i o n i n a w o r l d .


15/20

ON EXIST ENTIA LISM 15

B ut suppose we wa ive the se c ons ide r a t ions a nd a g r e e t ha t t he r e a r e c ond i -

t i ons . Among the c ond i t i ons t he r e w i l l be be ing wise a n d fa i l ing to be wise ;

be ing unw ise a n d f a i l i ng to be unw ise ; e x i s t i ng a n d fa i l ing to ex is t . F o r a n y

c o n d i t i o n C , th e p r o p o s i t i o n e v e ry th ing tha t me e t s C e x i s ts i s necessa r i ly t rue ;

bu t o f c ou r se i t i s no t t r ue i n ge ne r a l t ha t i f a n ob je c t m e e t s C in a wo r ld W ,

the n i t e x i s ts in W . No w some c ond i t i ons w i ll be ex is tence en ta i l ing; t h e y

will be suc h tha t ( ne c e s sar i ly ) f o r a ny o b je c t x a nd w or ld W , i f x m e e t s C in

W, the n x ex is t s in I~ . Oth e rs wil l no t ; and th e se r ious ac tua l i s t wi ll ho ld th a t

a ny c on d i t i on o f t he so r t ha s P ( whe r e P is a p r o pe r ty ) is e x i s t e nc e e n t a il i ng ,

wh i l e t hose o f t he so r t d o e s n o t h a v e P a re not . Here the se r ious ac tua l i s t

is c o r r e c t , I be l ie ve ; bu t f o r p r e se n t pu r pose s we ne e dn t a r gue tha t ge ne ra l

p o i n t . F o r s u p p o se w e r e t u r n t o

(6) Necessa r i ly , i f Soc ra te s doe s no t e x i s t h a d b e e n t r u e , t h e n Socrates

d o e s n o t e x i s t wo uld ha ve e x i s t e d ,

the p r e mis s o f t he a n t i -e x i s te n t i a li s t a r gume n t t ha t oc c a s ione d ou r e xc u r s ion

in to s e r ious a c tua l ism. Our q ue s t ion i s r e a lly whe the r be ing t rue i s ex is ten ce

e n tai li ng . T he que s t ion i s wh e the r t he r e i s a p r opos i t i on P a nd a pos s ib le s t a t e

o f a f fa ir s S s u c h t h a t i f S h a d b e e n a c tu a l , t h e n P w o u l d h a v e b e e n tr u e b u t

n o n e x i s t e n t - i .e . , P w o u l d h a v e b e e n t r u e a n d t h e r e w o u l d n t h a v e b e e n a n y

such th ing as P . The answer , i t seems to me , i s obvious . C lea r ly the re i s no

S uc h s t a te o f a f f a i rs a nd p r op os i t i on . C le a rly no p r opo s i t i on c ou ld ha ve be e n

t r ue w i tho u t e x i s ti ng . C le a r ly e ve r y s t a t e o f a f f a ir s wh ic h is suc h tha t i f i t ha d

be e n a c tua l , P wou ld ha ve be e n t r ue , i s a lso suc h tha t i f it ha d b e e n t r ue , t he n

P w o u l d h a v e e x i s t e d . (6 ) , t h e r e f o r e , o u g h t t o b e a c c e p t e d a n d P o l lo c k i a n

e x i s t e n ti a l ism, l i ke P owe r s i a n , shou ld be r e j e c t e d .

I V PRI ORI AN EXI STENTI ALI SM

N o w s u p p o se w e t u r n o u r a t t e n t i o n t o

( 5 ) I f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n Soc ra te s doe s no t e x i s t is possible , then i t is

pos s ib ly t r ue ,

t he mos t c on t r ove r s i a l p r e mis s o f t he a n t i - e x i s t e n t i a l i s t a r gume n t . Among

t h o s e w h o d e n y ( 5 ) a re A r t h u r P r i o r a , K i t F i n e 9 a n d R o b e r t A d a m s 1 ~

Prior ian Ex is ten t ia l i sm t he r e f o r e , is t he b r a nd o f e x i s te n t i a li sm tha t de n ie s

( 5 ) ; t he P r io r i a n Ex i s t e n t i a li s t be l ie ve s t ha t a p r opos i t i on c a n be poss ib le


16/20


w i t h o u t b e i n g pos s i b l y t r ue . T h i s i s i n i t i a l l y p u z z l i n g - very puz z l ing . I f

pos s ib i l i t y , f o r a p r opos i t i on , i sn ' t pos s ib l e t r u th , wha t i s i t ? I f a p r opos i -

t i o n c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n t r u e , h o w c a n i t b e p o s s ib le ? I f s o m e o n e h e l d t h a t

t h e r e a re m a n y p o s si b le w o r l d s, b u t o n l y t h e a c t u a l w o r l d c o u l d h av e b e e n

a c t u a l, t h e n a c c o r d i n g t o R o b e r t A d a m s , w e w o u l d b e l e f t t o w o n d e r in

wh a t s e nse t he o the r pos s ib l e wor ld s a r e pos s ib l e , s inc e the y c ou ldn ' t ha ve

be e n a c tua l . B u t doe sn ' t t he s a me ho ld f o r pos s ib i l i t y a nd poss ib l e t r u th

wh e n i t i s p r opos i t i ons t ha t a r e t he t op i c o f d is c uss ion? I nde e d , i t l ooks a s i f

t h e r e a r e n ' t t w o c o n c e p t s h e r e , b u t o n l y o n e ; i t lo o k s a s i f Soc r a t e s doe s no t

e x i s t

i s poss ib le ( in the bro ad ly log ica l sense ) and

Soc r a te s doe s n o t e x i s t

is

pos s ib ly t r ue ' e xp r e s s t he ve r y s a me p r opos i t i on . P oss ib i l i t y a nd ne c e s s i t y ,

af ter a l l , a re

ale th ic

m o d a l it ie s - m o d a l i t i e s o f

t r u t h .

I t looks in i t ia l ly a s i f

'poss ib le ' jus t m e a n s ' poss ib ly t rue ' ; wha t e l se is t h e r e f o r i t t o m e a n ? W h a t

c a n P r io r , F ine , Ada m s e t a l . be th inking of? .

One wa y we c a n unde r s t a nd th i s a l l e ge d c on t r a s t be twe e n poss ib i l i t y a nd

poss ib l e t r u th ha s be e n sugge s t e d ( pe r ha ps a b i t obsc u r e ly ) by Ar thu r P r io r :

pos s ib i l i t y , a s oppose d to pos s ib l e t r u th , i s pos s i b le non - f a l s e hood . To ge t a

g r a sp o f th i s no t ion , we m us t t u r n t o t he i de a o f e s sen t ia l a t t r i bu t ion . An

ob je c t x ha s a p r o pe r ty P e s se n ti a ll y i f a nd o n ly i f i t i s imposs ib le t ha t x

exis t and lack P - a l te rna t ive ly (g iven se r ious ac tua l i sm ) , i f and o nly i f i t i s

i m p o s si b le t h a t x h a v e t h e c o m p l e m e n t o f P . S o c r a te s , f o r e x a m p l e , h a s

e s se n t i a l l y t he p r ope r t i e s be i ng a pe r s on a n d being se l f - ident ical ; i t is im-

poss ib l e t ha t S oc r a t e s shou ld ha ve e x i s t e d a nd l a c ke d the se p r ope r t i e s , a nd

i m p o s si b le t h a t h e s h o u ld h a v e h a d e i t h e r o f th e i r c o m p l e m e n t s . O n t h e o t h e r

ha nd , t he r e c ou ld ha ve be e n no suc h th ing a s S oc r a t e s a t a l l , i n wh ic h c a se

S o c r a t e s w o u l d n o t h a v e h a d t h e s e o r a n y o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s . A c c o r d i n g l y ,

i t is poss ib le t ha t S oc r a t e s shou ld no t h a ve ha d the se p r o pe r t i e s .

N o w s u p p o s e w e a g re e , fo r p u r p o s e s o f a r g u m e n t , t h a t t h e n u m b e r n i n e

i s a ne c e s sa r y be ing ; i t c o u ld n o t ha ve f a i le d to e x i s t . ( I f y ou th ink num be r s

a r e c on t inge n t be ings , subs t i tu t e y ou r f a vo r i t e ne c e s sa r y be ing f o r t he nu m be r

n ine . ) L ike S oc r a t e s , t he nu m be r n ine ha s some o f it s p r ope r t i e s e s sen t i al l y

- b e i n g a n u m b e r , f o r e x a m p l e , a d d b e i n g c o m p o s i t e . I n c on t r a s t t o S oc r a t e s ,

how e ve r , n ine c ou ld no t ha ve f a il e d to e x i s t ; a nd he nc e i t is no t pos s ib l e t ha t

n ine shou ld h a ve l a c ke d the se p r ope r t i e s . W e m igh t ma r k th i s d i f f e r e nc e by

sa y ing tha t S oc r a t e s ha s t he p r op e r ty o f be ing a pe r son

essen t ia l l y ,

b u t n i n e

h a s t h e p r o p e r t y o f b e in g a n u m b e r necessar i l y . An o b j e c t x h a s a p r o p e r t y

P ne c e s sa ri l y i f a nd on ly i f i t is ne ce s sa r y tha t t he f o r m e r ha ve the l a t t e r -


17/20


i f a nd on ly i f t he s t a t e o f a f fa i rs c ons i s t ing in x s ha v ing P c o u ld no t ha ve

f a il e d to ob ta in . A l t e r na t ive ly , x ha s P ne c e s sa ri ly i f a nd on ly i f x ha s P

e s se n ti a lly a nd x is a ne c e s sa r y be ing . S o S oc r a t e s ha s the p r o pe r ty o f be ing

a pe r son e s se n t i a l ly ; God , i f c l a s s i c a l t he i s t s a r e r igh t , ha s tha t p r ope r ty

ne c e ssar i ly . Eve r y th ing , t r iv i a l ly , ha s e x i s t e nc e e s se n t i a l ly - i .e . , no th ing

c ou ld ha ve e x i s t e d bu t f a i l e d to e x i s t . On ly suc h ne c e s sa r y be ings a s God ,

how e ve r , ha ve e x i s t e nc e ne c e s sa ri ly .

B u t n o w w e m u s t n o t a s im i la r d i s ti n c t io n a m o n g p r o p o s i t i o n s . I f o n l y

some of them a re necessa ry be ings , we sha l l have to d is t inguish having truth

essentially

f r o m

having truth necessarily.

A pr op os i t i on p ha s t r u th e s se n ti al -

ly i f a nd on ly i f i t i s no t poss ib l e t ha t p sho u ld ha ve e x i s t e d a nd l a c ke d t r u th

a l t e rna t i v e l y ( g ive n tha t no p r opos i t i on c a n be ne i the r t r ue no r f a l s e ) i f

and on ly i f i t is no t poss ib le tha t p ex is t and be fa lse , tha t i s (g iven (6) ) , i f

a nd on ly i f i t i s no t poss ib l e t ha t p be f a ls e . A p r op os i t i on w i ll ha ve t r u t h

necessarily

o r

be necessarily true

how e ve r , i f a nd on ly i f i t ha s t r u th e s sen t ia l -

ly a nd f u r th e r m or e e x i s t s ne c e s sa r ily , c ou ld n o t ha ve f a i le d to e x i s t . S o p is

ne c e s sar i ly t r ue i f a nd on ly i f it is no t poss ib l e t ha t p f a il t o be t r u e . Eve r y

ne c e ssa r y t r u th i s a n e s sen t ia l t r u th ; bu t i f t he p r e se n t b r a nd o f e x i s te n t i a li sm

is righ t , t he c onve r se doe s no t h o ld . The p r op os i t i on

Socrates ex i s t s

f o r

e xa m ple , c ou ld n o t ha ve be e n f a lse . I t c ou ld ha ve f a i le d to e x i s t , how e ve r ,

a nd he nc e c ou ld ha ve f a i l e d to be t r ue ; i t i s t he r e f o r e e s se n t i a l ly bu t no t

ne c e s sa r i ly t r ue . And now the c l a im i s t ha t t o s a y tha t Socra t es does no t

ex i s t

i s poss ib le , is on ly to say tha t i t i s poss ib ly non- fa lse - cou ld have fa i led

to be f a ls e . B u t o f c ou r se tha t doe s no t e n t a i l , s a y , t he P r io r i a n , t ha t i t c ou ld

have been t rue - i . e . , i s poss ib ly t rue .

No w I t h ink we c a n se e tha t P r io r ia n e x i s t e n t ia l ism, l i ke the P ow e r s i an

a nd P o l loc k ia n va r i et i es , c a nno t be r igh t. Th e f unda m e n ta l r e a son i s t ha t i f

i t

w e r e

r igh t , p r opos i t i on s l i ke

( 23 ) S oc r a t e s doe s no t e x i s t

wo u ld no t be poss ib l e a f t e r a ll ; a nd i f we kno w a ny th in g a t a ll a bo u t t he se

m a t t e r s , we know tha t ( 23 ) i s poss ib le . Le t me e xp la in .

F i r s t , the Pr ior ian ex is ten t ia l i s t wi l l concede or ra the r ins is t tha t (23) i s

n o t

poss ib ly t rue .

( 2 3 ) w o u l d b e t r u e o n l y i f i t ex i s t ed , w h i c h i t c o u l d d o

o n l y i f S o c r a te s a ls o e x i s te d ; b u t t h e n o f c o u r s e i t w o u l d n o t b e t r u e . N o r ,

f u r th e r m or e , i s ( 2 3 ) t r ue in some poss ib le wor ld . I f t he r e we r e a poss ib l e

wor ld in wh ic h ( 23 ) i s t r ue , t ha t wou ld be a wor ld in wh ic h S oc r a t e s doe s


18/20

8 ALVIN PLANTINGA

no t e x i s t . B u t ( 23 ) doe s no t e x i s t i n a ny wor ld i n wh ic h S oc r a t e s doe s no t ;

so i f ( 23 ) i s t r ue i n som e wor ld , it i s t r ue i n a wor ld i n wh ic h i t doe s no t e x i s t

- wh ic h , t he P r io r ia n c onc e de s , i s imposs ib le .

Ac c o r d ing to P r io r i a n e x i st e n t ia l ism, t he n , ( 23 ) i s ne i the r pos s ib ly t r ue no r

t r ue i n some poss ib le wo r ld . Ho w, t he n , c a n i t be t ho ug h t o f a s pos s ib l e ?

The P r io r i a n w i l l r e p ly , o f c ou r se , t ha t ( 23 ) c ou ld ha ve f a i l e d to be f a l s e . I t

c ou ld no t ha ve b e e n t r ue ; b u t i t c ou ld ha ve f a il e d to be f al se . The r e a r e

poss ib l e w or ld s i n wh ic h i t i s no t f a l s e: t he wo r ld s i n wh ic h S oc r a t e s doe s no t

e x i s t. I sa id t h a t i f w e k n o w a n y t h i n g a t a ll a b o u t m o d a l i t y , w e k n o w t h a t

( 23 ) i s pos s ib le ; f r om the p o in t o f v i e w o f P r io ri a n Ex i s t e n t ia l i sm th i s i n tu i -

t i on doe s no t r e qu i r e pos s ib l e t r u th . P oss ib l e non - f a l s e hood i s pos s ib i l i t y

e n o u g h .

B u t su r e ly th i s i s wr ong ; pos s ib le n on - f a l s e hood i s no t pos s ib i li t y e noug h . I n

the f i r s t p l a c e , e n t i r e ly t oo ma ny p r opos i t i ons a r e pos s ib ly non - f a l s e : f o r

e x a m p l e ,

(24 ) Soc rates is se lf -diverse ,

a nd e ve n suc h e xp l i c i t c on t r a d i c t i on s a s

(25) Socra tes i s wise and Socra tes i s no t wise .

Ac c o r d ing to t he e x i s t e n t i a l i s t ( 24 ) a nd ( 25 ) a r e pos s ib ly non - f a l s e ; t he y

w o u l d n o t h a v e e x i st e d a n d h e n c e w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n f al se i f t h e r e h a d

be e n no suc h th ing a s S oc r a t e s . B u t su r e ly t he r e i s no s e ns ib l e c on c e p t io n o f

poss ib i l i ty a t a ll in wh ich (2 4) a nd (2 5) a re poss ib le .

S e c o nd ly , ( 24 ) a nd ( 25 ) im p ly , r e spe c tive ly ,

(26) the re i s a t l eas t on e th ing tha t i s se l f-d ive rse ,

a n d

( 27 ) t he r e is a t l e a st one th ing tha t is bo th w i se a nd no t w i se

in t h e f i rs t o r de r l og i c . B u t ( 26 ) a nd ( 27 ) a r e n t e ve n so m uc h a s pos s ib ly

non- f a l se . P oss ib l e non - f a l s e hood i s t he r e f o r e no t do se d und e r l og i ca l imp l i c a-

t i on - a c ruc i a l l y s e r ious imp a i r me n t f o r a c a nd ida t e f o r pos s ib i l i ty .

B u t t he c l i nc h ing po in t , I t h ink , i s t he f o l lowing . W ha t wa s the a l l e ge d

ins ight behind ex is ten t ia l i sm in the f i r s t p lace? Tha t i t i s imposs ib le tha t

ob je c t s o f wh ic h we migh t s a y S oc r a t e s is a c ons t i t ue n t - s ingu la r p r opos i t i ons

d i r e c t ly a b ou t h im , pos s ib l e wor ld s c on ta in ing h im , h i s e s se nc e s, a nd the


19/20


l ike - shou ld ha ve e x i s t e d i f he ha d no t . I f E is a ny e n t i t y o f t ha t s o r t , t he

ide a wa s tha t

( 28 ) E e x i st s a nd S oc r a t e s doe s no t

i s imposs ib le . This i s the cent ra l ex is ten t ia l i s t ins ight . But no te tha t (28) ,

f r om the P r io r i a n pe r spe c t ive , i s poss ib ly non - f a l se ; i t wou ld ha ve f a i l e d to

be f a lse i f S oc r a t e s ha d no t e x i s t e d . S o i f poss ib l e non - f a l se hoo d is poss ib il i ty

enough, (28) i s poss ib le a f te r a l l . The Pr ior ian ex is ten t ia l i s t i s thus hois t on

h i s ow n pe ta r d . H i s f und a m e n ta l i n s igh t i s t ha t ( 2 8 ) is no t poss ib le ; he the r e -

f o r e a r gues th a t p r opo s i t i ons su c h a s ( 23 ) a re n o t ne c e s sa r y be ings. Th i s

a ppa r e n t ly c o n f l i c t s w i th the obv ious t r u th tha t suc h p r opo s i t i ons a r e possib le .

The p r o f f e r e d r e so lu t ion c ons is t s i n c l a iming th a t poss ib le non - f a l se hood i s

suf f ic ien t ; bu t the n (2 8) i s poss ib le a f te r al l.

The m or a l t o be d r a wn , I t h ink , i s t ha t poss ib i l i t y , f o r a p r op os i t i on , is

poss ib l e t r u th ; t he r e i s no th ing e lse f o r i t t o be . T he a ll ege d d i s t i nc t ion

be tw e e n poss ib l e t r u th a nd poss ib i l it y is a c on f us ion . Ac c o r d ing to P r io r , 11

Je a n B ur ida n d i s t i ngu i she d the pos s i b l e f r o m t h e pos s i b l y t r ue . B u r i d a n , h o w -

e ve r , a ppa r e n t ly d r e w th i s d i s t i nc t ion no t f o r p r o p o s i t i o n s b u t f o r s e n t e n c e s

m o r e

e xa c t ly , s e n te nc e toke ns . And he r e B ur ida n i s c o r r e c t . A se n te nc e

tok e n i s t r ue ( o r t r ue in Eng l i sh ) i f it e xp r e s ses (in Eng l i sh ) a t r ue p r opo s i t i on ;

i t i s poss ib l e ( we m a y sa y ) i f i t exp r e s se s a poss ib l e t r u t h - i f t he p r o pos i t i o n

i t express ( in Engl ish) i s poss ib le , i . e . , poss ib ly t rue . T he sen tence to ke n

( 29 ) the r e a r e no t s e n te nc e toke n s ,

the n , i s possib l e. I t c ou ld n o t ha ve b e e n t r ue ( in Eng l i sh ) , how e ve r ; f o r t o be

t r ue i t w ou ld ha ve ha d to e x i s t : i n w ic h c a se i t wo u ld no t ha ve be e n t r ue . W e

c ou ld the r e f o r e s a y , i f we w i she d , t ha t ( 29 ) i s poss ib l e bu t no t poss ib ly t r ue .

B u t t he r e is no s imi l ar d i s t i nc t ion in th e c a se o f p r opo s i t i ons : poss ib i li t y , f o r

a p r opo s i t i on i s poss ib l e t r u th . T r u th a n d f a l se hood a re the sa l ie n t c ha ra c t e ri s -

t i c s o f p r opos i t i ons ; i t i s t he r e f o r e na tu r a l t o u se poss ib l e t o a bb r e v ia t e

poss ib ly t r ue ( r a the r t ha n , sa y , poss ib ly e x i s t e n t o r poss ib ly P a u l s fa vo r i t e

p r op os i t i on ) . B u t t o a r gue tha t ( 23 ) i s poss ib l e on the g r ounds tha t i t c ou ld

have fa i led to be fa lse , i s l ike a rguing tha t Socra tes i s poss ib ly a number or

poss ib ly sel f-dive rse on th e grou nds tha t he co uld have fa iled to have the

p r ope r t i e s o f be ing a n on - nu m be r a nd be ing se l f- ide n t ic a l. I nde e d he c ou ld

ha ve f a i l e d to ha ve the se p r ope r t i e s ; ha d he no t e x i s t e d S oc r a t e s wou ld no t

ha ve ha d the se o r a ny o the r p r op e r t i e s . I t i s she e r c on f u s ion , how e ve r , t o


20/20


c o n c l u d e t h a t h e i s p o s s i b l y a n u m b e r o r p o s s i b l y s e l f - di v e r se . S i m i l a r l y , t h e n ,

f o r p r o p o s i t io n s : i f s o m e p r o p o s i t i o n s - e .g . ( 2 3 ) - a r e c o n t i n g e n t o b j e c t s ,

t h e n t h o s e p r o p o s i t i o n s c o u l d h a v e f a i le d t o b e f a ls e . I t is s h e e r c o n f u s i o n ,

h o w e v e r , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y a r e p o s s ib l e .

P r i o r i a n e x i s t e n t ia l i s m , t h e r e f o r e , is a s u n a c c e p t a b l e a s t h e P o w e r s i a n a n d

P o l l o c k i a n v a r i e t ie s . T h e c o n c l u s i o n t o b e d r a w n i s t h a t t h e a n t i - e x i s t e n t i a l is t

a r g u m e n t is s o u n d a n d e x i s t e n t i a l i sm m u s t b e r e j e c t e d .

alvin ollege and University o f No tre Da me

N O T E S

1 Wor lds , T im es and Se lves (Univ . o f Mass . P ress , A mh ers t , 1977) , p . 109 .

2 O f c o u r s e t h e w h o le h e a r t e d e x i s t en t i a li s t w i l l a d d t h a t s t at e s o f a f f ai r s ( a n d h e n c e

p o s s ib l e w o r ld s ) a r e a ls o o n to lo g i c a l l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e i n d iv id u a ls t h e y i n v o lv e .

3 T h e N a tu r e o f N e c e s s i ty ( O x f o r d , 1 9 7 4 ) , p p . 1 2 1 - 1 6 3 .

4 Ac tua l i sm and th isness , Syn the se 49 (1981) , p . 5 .

s A S y s t e m o f L o g ic ( N e w Y o r k , 1 8 4 6 ) , p . 2 1 .

I n c o n v e r s a t i o n ; I m n o t c e r t a in P o w e r s w a s a l to g e th e r s e r i ou s .

A s I d id i n D e e s se n t i a , G r a ze r P h i l o s op h i s c h e S tu d i e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 . I a m

i n d e b t e d t o J o h n P o l lo c k w h o h e l p e d m e s e e t h e e r r o r o f m y w a y s.

s T h e o r i e s o f a c tu a l i t y i n T h e P o s sib le a n d t h e A c tu a l , e d . M . L o u x ( Co r n e l l U n iv e r s i t y

Press , I thaca, 1979), p . 201.

9 Pos tsc r ip t in W or ld , T im es and Selves, pp . l16 f f .

lo Ac tua l i sm and th isness ( see a l so N ote 4 ) .

11 Th e poss ib ly - t rue and the poss ib le , in Papers in Log ic and E th ics (Univers i ty o f Mass.

P ress , Amhers t , 1976) , p . 202 .

Plantinga - On Existentialism

Documents

Transcript of Plantinga - On Existentialism