The Relation Between Formal Validity and Epistemic Legitimacy in Modal Arguments with Strong Ontological Consequences
Fuente:
Zenodo
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Recurso digital |
| Lenguaje: | polaco |
| Publicado: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866901991670677504 |
|---|---|
| author | Kozłowski, Kornel |
| author_facet | Kozłowski, Kornel |
| contents | <p>This paper analyzes the relation between formal validity and epistemic legitimacy in modal arguments with strong ontological consequences. The starting point is a reconstruction of two inferential schemes—the modal ontological argument (MOA) and its reversed version—within standard Kripke semantics for system S5. The analysis reveals full formal symmetry between both schemes, resulting from the properties of the accessibility relation and the consequences of axiom 5. This symmetry, however, is purely system-level and does not entail epistemic symmetry. It is argued that assessing the epistemic admissibility of the premises requires a metalevel perspective that is structurally inaccessible and unrepresentable within the language of the modal system itself. Consequently, although the premises concerning the possible necessity of existence and non-existence are formally symmetric, they may possess radically different epistemic statuses. This leads to the formulation of a two-level model for evaluating modal arguments, integrating formal validity with normative epistemic analysis and highlighting the methodological limits of purely system-based assessments of ontologically significant modal reasoning.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18369205 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | pol |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | The Relation Between Formal Validity and Epistemic Legitimacy in Modal Arguments with Strong Ontological Consequences Kozłowski, Kornel modal logic S5 modal ontological argument formal validity epistemic legitimacy philosophy of logic formal epistemology metatheory ontology <p>This paper analyzes the relation between formal validity and epistemic legitimacy in modal arguments with strong ontological consequences. The starting point is a reconstruction of two inferential schemes—the modal ontological argument (MOA) and its reversed version—within standard Kripke semantics for system S5. The analysis reveals full formal symmetry between both schemes, resulting from the properties of the accessibility relation and the consequences of axiom 5. This symmetry, however, is purely system-level and does not entail epistemic symmetry. It is argued that assessing the epistemic admissibility of the premises requires a metalevel perspective that is structurally inaccessible and unrepresentable within the language of the modal system itself. Consequently, although the premises concerning the possible necessity of existence and non-existence are formally symmetric, they may possess radically different epistemic statuses. This leads to the formulation of a two-level model for evaluating modal arguments, integrating formal validity with normative epistemic analysis and highlighting the methodological limits of purely system-based assessments of ontologically significant modal reasoning.</p> |
| title | The Relation Between Formal Validity and Epistemic Legitimacy in Modal Arguments with Strong Ontological Consequences |
| topic | modal logic S5 modal ontological argument formal validity epistemic legitimacy philosophy of logic formal epistemology metatheory ontology |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18369205 |