12/16/21

This is, and should be, a classic in philosophy. It is a rebirth of metaphysics, which was killed of by the logical positivists. It demonstrates the necessity and shows the metaphysical problems in a world that has undergone the revolution of modern science and gives solutions to them that other philosophers will not have thought of. It demystifices possible world semantics and introduces rigid designation, it also breaks the link between necessity and a prioricism that gradually had become unconceivable to question in the history of philosophy.

I believe, his metaphysical results are very relevant to philosophy of mind, which is my main interest. But his ability to question previous philosophical tradition in metaphysics is missing in his philosophy of mind (specifically a Cartesian outlook). This is not just a question of that I disagree with him as he seems oblivious to obvious counter-arguments. Philosophy of mind must have changed so radically between this book was published 45 years ago and when I first studied it 20 years ago. ( )

This series of lectures is best passed over by anyone not thoroughly interested in the picayune quibbles and splitting of imaginary hairs that dominates modern academic metaphysics. Although, if you happen to enjoy non-sequiturs, category errors, equivocation of terms, or a dogged determination to draw ridiculous conclusions from implausible premises, then you might find some mild amusement in this book - though, to be honest, it doesn't score quite as well in any of those categories as certain works by David Lewis. ( )