Home The Broad Escape from Narrow Fictionalism
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Broad Escape from Narrow Fictionalism

  • Sam Dickson ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Jacob O’Sullivan
Published/Copyright: October 20, 2025
Metaphysica
From the journal Metaphysica

Abstract

Fictionalism is a popular approach to handling possible worlds discourse. It gives one the power of possible world semantics without being committed to undesirable consequences. The standard approach of reparsing possible world statements by attaching a fictional operator suffers from a problem that we argue is structural for all kinds of narrow fictionalism. To show this, we develop a toy theory of temporal fictionalism, showing that it is vulnerable to the same problem. We develop a solution in the form of a broad account of modal fictionalism. Broad modal fictionalism is a contentious view and its usefulness needs to be clarified. Given this, towards the end of the paper we offer some motivations for why broad modal fictionalism is useful and gesture towards how modal talk arises in everyday discourse.


Corresponding author: Sam Dickson, University of Lincoln, Department of Humanities and Heritage, Lincoln, UK, E-mail:

References

Baron, S., K. Miller, and J. Tallant. 2021. “Temporal Fictionalism for a Timeless World.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 102 (2): 245–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12637.Search in Google Scholar

Benacerraf, P. 1973. “Mathematical Truth.” The Journal of Philosophy 70 (19): 661–79.10.2307/2025075Search in Google Scholar

Brock, S. 1993. “Modal Fictionalism: A Response to Rosen.” Mind 102: 147–50.10.1093/mind/102.405.147Search in Google Scholar

Clarke-Doane, Justin. 2016. “Debunking and Dispensability.” In Explanation in Ethics and Mathematics: Debunking and Dispensability, edited by Uri D. Leibowitz, and Neil Sinclair. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198778592.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

de Cruz, H. 2016. “Numerical Cognition and Mathematical Realism.” Philosophers’ Imprint 16.Search in Google Scholar

Divers, J. 1999. “A Genuine Realist Theory of Advanced Modalising.” Mind 108: 217–39.10.1093/mind/108.430.217Search in Google Scholar

Divers, J. 2014. “The Modal Status of the Lewisian Analysis of Modality.” Mind 123 (491): 861–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzu088.Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, Bob. 2017. “Modal Empiricism: Objection, Reply, Proposal.” In Modal Epistemology After Rationalism, edited by Bob Fischer, and Felipe Leon. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-44309-6Search in Google Scholar

Hale, B. 1995. “Modal Fictionalism: A Simple Dilemma.” Analysis 55 (2): 63–7. https://doi.org/10.2307/3328901.Search in Google Scholar

Leng, M. 2010. Mathematics and Reality. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280797.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Liggins, D. 2008. “Modal Fictionalism and Possible-Worlds Discourse.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 138 (2): 151–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9001-z.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, K. 2021. “Pretence Fictionalism About the Non-Present.” Inquiry: 36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1971557.Search in Google Scholar

Nolan, D. 1997. “Three Problems for “Strong” Modal Fictionalism.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 87 (3): 259–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004218817629.10.1023/A:1004218817629Search in Google Scholar

Nolan, D., and J. O’Leary-Hawthorne. 1996. “Reflexive Fictionalisms.” Analysis 56 (1): 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/56.1.23.Search in Google Scholar

Noonan, H. 1994. “In Defence of the Letter of Fictionalism.” Analysis 54 (3): 133–9. https://doi.org/10.2307/3328661.Search in Google Scholar

Nozick, R. 2001. Invariances: The Structure of the Objective World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rosen, G. 1990. “Modal Fictionalism.” Mind 99 (395): 327–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/xcix.395.327.Search in Google Scholar

Rosen, G. 1993. “A Problem for Fictionalism About Possible Worlds.” Analysis 53 (2): 71–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/3328837.Search in Google Scholar

Skow, B. 2019. “The Tenseless Theory of Time and the Moodless Theory of Modality.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (2): 506–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12258.Search in Google Scholar

Thomasson, A. 2020. Norms and Necessity. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780190098193.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470696675Search in Google Scholar

Woodward, R. 2008. “Why Modal Fictionalism Is Not Self-Defeating.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 139 (2): 273–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-007-9117-9.Search in Google Scholar

Yablo, Stephen. 1996. “How in the World?” In Metaphysics, edited by Christopher Hill. USA: University of Arkansas Press.10.5840/philtopics19962411Search in Google Scholar

Yablo, Stephen. 2005. “The Myth of the Seven.” In Fictionalism in Metaphysics, edited by Mark Eli Kalderon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199282180.003.0004Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-06-06
Accepted: 2025-07-24
Published Online: 2025-10-20

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 24.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mp-2024-0014/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button