Work #1472 · Early period

A Theory of Conditionals

Stalnaker's 1968 paper inaugurating the possible-worlds semantics for indicative and counterfactual conditionals

Robert Stalnaker · 1968 · English · Scientific-philosophical paper

Tradition: Analytic metaphysics / possible-worlds semantics / philosophy of language

Stalnaker's 1968 founding paper of the possible-worlds semantics for conditionals — the 'Stalnaker conditional'

Published in Nicholas Rescher (ed.), 'Studies in Logical Theory' (American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series 2, Blackwell 1968, pp. 98-112), 'A Theory of Conditionals' inaugurates the possible-worlds semantics for indicative and counterfactual conditionals that, alongside David Lewis's subsequent 'Counterfactuals' (1973), defined the field. Stalnaker's distinctive thesis: 'if A then B' is true at a world w iff B is true at the closest A-world to w — a selection-function semantics where some unique 'nearest' A-world is selected for each world w. Stalnaker assumes uniqueness of the selected nearest world (giving rise to the Conditional Excluded Middle: 'if A then B' or 'if A then not-B'); Lewis would later argue (in 'Counterfactuals') that no unique nearest world need exist (giving rise to a more complex 'closeness ordering' semantics). The two approaches define the central technical-philosophical controversy in modern philosophy of conditionals. Stalnaker's paper also extends the framework from indicative to subjunctive conditionals — including counterfactuals about the past — and treats the philosophical-conceptual issues (what 'closeness' means, what its semantics requires) with greater explicitness than Lewis's later work. The paper has been continuously productive: it founded the modern philosophy of conditionals, made possible the modern analysis of counterfactual reasoning across the sciences, and is the principal Stalnaker contribution to the contemporary metaphysics of modality (alongside the body of work collected in 'Ways a World Might Be' (2003) and 'Context' (2014)).

Author

Editions cited

  • A Theory of Conditionals, in N. Rescher (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory, APQ Monograph 2 (Blackwell, 1968), pp. 98-112
  • Reprinted in Frank Jackson (ed.), Conditionals (Oxford, 1991)
  • Reprinted in Robert C. Stalnaker, Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought (Oxford, 1999), ch. 4
  • Companion paper: Stalnaker and Richmond H. Thomason, 'A Semantic Analysis of Conditional Logic', Theoria 36 (1970)
  • Critical commentary: Frank Jackson, Conditionals (Blackwell, 1987); Daniel Nolan, Topics in the Philosophy of Possible Worlds (Routledge, 2002)

School Embodiments

Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 30%
Philosophy of Language · 20%
Pragmatism · 12%
Realism · 10%
Logicism · 10%
Analytic Philosophy · 8%

Founding paper of the possible-worlds analytic-metaphysical treatment of conditionals.

"Consider a possible world in which A is true, and which otherwise differs minimally from the actual world." (A Theory of Conditionals, §1)

Founding work in semantic theory of conditionals — both indicative and counterfactual.

"A semantic analysis of conditional statements." (A Theory of Conditionals, abstract)

Pragmatic-presuppositional account of the selection function.

"The selection function is context-relative — it depends on which similarities count." (A Theory of Conditionals, §4)
Realism 10%

Realism about modal facts — the closest-world relation is mind-independent.

"The closeness relation among worlds is an objective metaphysical structure." (A Theory of Conditionals, §3)
Logicism 10%

Formal-logical analysis of conditional connectives.

"Formal axioms for the conditional operator." (A Theory of Conditionals, §5)

Analytic-philosophical tradition.

Internal Tensions

Together with Lewis's 'Counterfactuals' (1973), the founding statement of possible-worlds semantics for conditionals; the Stalnaker-Lewis divergence (uniqueness assumption / Conditional Excluded Middle vs not) defined the field. The two frameworks continue to organise contemporary debates in philosophy of conditionals, with Stalnaker's defended by (among others) Frank Jackson and Stefan Kaufmann, Lewis's by (among others) Jonathan Bennett and Dorothy Edgington.

I. Time

1968. Stalnaker was 28; the paper appeared as the lead article in the Rescher-edited APQ Monograph.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: NDet Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Cornell / Pittsburgh philosophical milieu — Stalnaker had completed his Princeton PhD in 1965 and was teaching at Yale / Illinois before moving to Cornell.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Curved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Short scientific-philosophical paper (~15 pages). Form is technical-semantic: definitions, axioms, theorems, philosophical interpretation.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

Early Stalnaker. The observer is the young philosophical-logician working at the intersection of Kripke's modal-logical framework and the substantive philosophical questions about conditionals.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Immediate Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Impersonal

V. Energy

Formal-semantic energies of late-1960s philosophical logic. The selection-function semantics extends Kripke's possible-worlds framework to a problem (the meaning of conditionals) that earlier modal logic had not handled.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Single 15-page paper, hugely influential. The paper's central informational structure is the selection-function semantics; the philosophical-conceptual sections defend and motivate the formal apparatus.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Robert Stalnaker David Lewis

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How A Theory of Conditionals resolves each dilemma

31 resolved positions across 4 dimensions · 26 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Are the dead morally present to the living? Are there indivisible units of experience? Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Could an AI have a mind that matters? Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Does history have a direction or meaning? Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Does prayer change God's mind? How is knowledge of reality produced? If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Is memory stored or reconstructed? Is reality fundamentally digital? Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? What happens to "you" when you die? What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? What makes someone the same person over time? Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1471 On the Philosophy of Discovery All Works #1473 Inquiry →