Question
Peter Forrest and D.M. Armstrong considered nested examples of these things in a paper critiquing the principle of recombination. In the paper “Beyond [these things],” Takashi Yagisawa theorized their opposites, which Daniel Nolan illustrated with the example of Hobbes secretly squaring the circle. Saul Kripke argued that Hubert Humphrey would not care about a notion of identity named for these things in a critique of counterpart theory. One of these things is a “vast mosaic of local matters of particular fact,” according to (*) Humean supervenience. The “creaturely essence” is “trans-[these things] depraved” according to Alvin Plantinga, who reformulated the ontological argument in terms of these things. In On the Plurality of these things, David Lewis argued that these things literally exist, defending modal realism. For 10 points, Leibniz argued that we live in the best of what things? ■END■
ANSWER: possible worlds [accept “Beyond Possible Worlds”; accept possible world semantics; accept transworld identity; accept transworld depraved; accept On the Plurality of Worlds] (The second sentence refers to impossible worlds.)
<FW, Philosophy (Contemporary)>
= Average correct buzz position
Back to tossups