Modal Collapse and Modal Fallacies: No Easy Defense of Simplicity

American Philosophical Quarterly 59 (2):161-179 (2022)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I critically examine the claim that modal collapse arguments against the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) are in general fallacious. In a recent paper, Christopher Tomaszewski alleges that modal collapse arguments against DDS are invalid, owing to illicit substitutions of nonrigid singular terms into intensional contexts. I show that this is not, in general, the case. I show, further, that where existing modal collapse arguments are vulnerable to this charge the arguments can be repaired without any apparent dialectical impropriety. I conclude that the genuine debate over modal collapse and divine simplicity and modal collapse is substantially a controversy over the metaphysics of divine action, and that this constitutes a fruitful direction in which to take future discussions of the subject.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2022-06-16
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
107 ( #49,795 of 70,085 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
107 ( #6,627 of 70,085 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.