Where do I start with David Lewis?
>>25493838good question.Presumably not on 4chan.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/david-lewis/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-metaphysics/https://philpapers.org/archive/SINPGBooks:Naming and Necessity (Saul Kripke)Reference and Existence (Saul Kripke)no, just kiddin. just read On The Plurality of WorldsBut you should also read Kripke
bump
>>25495630>that picFucking kek. Good find
>>25493838Start with New Work for a Theory of Universals. It's a bit long, and a bit hard if you're completely new to analytic philosophy of the time, but probably his most important single article. Then you can read On the Plurality of Worlds which is nice. Those two works establish his main project, his commitment to concrete possible worlds but also to a primitive notion of naturalness. For contrast on his modal realism you can read Kripke's Naming and Necessity. For contrast on his theory of naturalness you can read Armstrong's various works, his Universals: An Opinionated Introduction being a good introduction but the main works would be the two volumes of Universals and Scientific Realism (Nominalism and Realism + A Theory of Universals), his article responding to Michael Devitt, and his book A World of States of Affairs. As for Lewis himself, you should eventually read his papers on causation and counterfactuals, on time (and time travel), maybe his stuff on mind, maybe his paper from the 60s called General Semantics, and probably read his book Counterfactuals. For the later Lewis, read Parts of Classes. Context for that includes the literature on mereology (start with van Inwagen) and on plural logic (start with Boolos). And then you can move in the direction of post-Lewisian thought. Bricker is especially continuing the Lewisian project, but for post-Lewisianism, Essence and Modality by Fine is a good start, then the Metametaphysics volume, and eventually Writing the Book of the World. But if your biggest interest is for some reason Lewisian Humean supervenience you can also get into the literature on laws of nature.
>>25497828slightly off topic but it looks he had diabetes most of his life. I can relate to that. poor fella.
>>25497828Thanks for the input, anon
>>25497828Quality effortpost anon, even if i'm one of those guys who still doesn't get the main interest in reading his frankly kooky stuff on multiple world theory and possibly time travel. It sounds like fun speculation but that's about it. I'm a complete brainlet thoughbeit so it's par for the course that this is what i've managed to understand from afar.
