Modal Realism, Counterpart Theory, and Unactualized Possibilities

Joseph A. Baltimore 1
  • 1 Department of Philosophy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA
Joseph A. Baltimore


It is a commonsense thesis that unactualized possibilities are not parts of actuality. To keep his modal realism in line with this thesis, David Lewis employed his indexical account of the term “actual.” I argue that the addition of counterpart theory to Lewis’s modal realism undermines his strategy for respecting the commonsense thesis. The case made here also reveals a problem for Lewis’s attempt to avoid haecceitism.

  • Cowling, S. 2012. “Haecceitism for Modal Realists.” Erkenntnis 77:399417.

  • Fara, D. G. 2009. “Dear Haecceitism.” Erkenntnis 70:28597.

  • Jubien, M. 2009. Possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lewis, D. 1968. “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic.” Journal of Philosophy 65:11326. Reprinted with postscripts in Lewis (1983).

    • Crossref
    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, D. 1983. Philosophical Papers, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Russell, J. 2013. “Possible Worlds and the Objective World.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. .

  • Salmon, N. 1988. “An Empire of Thin Air.” The Philosophical Review XCVII:23744. Reprinted in N. Salmon, Metaphysics, Mathematics, and Meaning: Philosophical Papers I, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Skow, B. 2008. “Haecceitism, Anti-Haecceitism, and Possible Worlds.” The Philosophical Quarterly 58:97107.

    • Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues