Wittgenstein and the logical positivists attempted to explain logical necessity in terms of linguistic conventions. It is often thought that their respective accounts have been conclusively refuted by objections from Quine, Dummett and others. We argue that this verdict is premature. Several of the most popular anti‐conventionalist arguments fail, partly because they misconstrue the idea of truth by convention in Wittgenstein and/or logical positivism. Correctly understood, conventionalism claims that, given certain linguistic conventions, some sentences are unconditionally true, that is true (...) irrespective of how the world happens to be. This claim is difficult to deny, and the corresponding conventionalism about logical necessity remains a viable position. (shrink)

Many contemporary metaphysicians believe that the existence of a contingent object such as Socrates metaphysically explains the existence of the corresponding set {Socrates}. This paper argues that this belief is mistaken. The argument proposed takes the form of a dilemma. The expression “{Socrates}” is a shorthand either for the expression “the set that contains all and only those objects that are identical to Socrates” or for the expression “the set that contains Socrates and nothing else”. However, Socrates' existence does not (...) explain the existence of the set that contains all and only those objects that are identical to Socrates, because there is such a set no matter whether or not Socrates exists. And although Socrates' existence does explain that of the set that contains Socrates and nothing else, this explanation is a conceptual rather than a metaphysical one. Both these claims rely on a deflationary account of the use of set theoretic vocabulary that is explained, though not properly justified, in the paper. (shrink)