DOCSLIB.ORG

The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS IN CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY Are there any universal entities? Or is the world populated only by particular things? The problem of universals is one of the most fasci- nating and enduring topics in the history of metaphysics, with roots in ancient and medieval philosophy. This collection of new essays provides an innovative overview of the contemporary debate on uni- versals. Rather than focusing exclusively on the traditional opposition between realism and nominalism, the contributors explore the com- plexity of the debate and illustrate a broad range of positions within both the realist and the nominalist camps. Realism is viewed through the lens of the distinction between constituent and relational ontolo- gies, while nominalism is reconstructed in light of the controversy over the notion of trope. The result is a fresh picture of contempo- rary metaphysics, in which traditional strategies of dealing with the problem of universals are both reaffirmed and called into question. gabriele galluzzo is a lecturer in ancient philosophy in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Exeter. michael loux is George N. Shuster Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS IN CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY edited by GABRIELE GALLUZZO MICHAEL J. LOUX University Printing House, Cambridge cb28bs, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107100893 C Cambridge University Press 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data The problem of universals in contemporary philosophy / edited by Gabriele Galluzzo, Michael J. Loux. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-10089-3 (alk. paper) 1. Universals (Philosophy) I. Galluzzo, Gabriele, editor. b105.u5p765 2015 111 .2 –dc23 2015003493 isbn 978-1-107-10089-3 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls, for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. For Jonathan and Francesco Contents List of contributors page ix Acknowledgments x Introduction 1 Gabriele Galluzzo and Michael J. Loux 1 An exercise in constituent ontology 9 Michael J. Loux 2 Against ontological structure 46 Peter van Inwagen 3 In defense of substantial universals 65 E. J. Lowe 4 A kind farewell to Platonism: for an Aristotelian understanding of kinds and properties 85 Gabriele Galluzzo 5 Universals in a world of particulars 114 John Heil 6 Is trope theory a divided house? 133 Robert K. Garcia 7 Tropes and the generality of laws 156 Sophie Gibb 8 On the origins of order: non-symmetric or only symmetric relations? 173 Fraser MacBride vii viii Contents 9 States of affairs and the relation regress 195 Anna-Sofia Maurin References 215 Index 225 Contributors gabriele galluzzo is a lecturer in ancient philosophy in the Department of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Exeter robert k. garcia is an assistant professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University sophie gibb is a senior lecturer in philosophy at Durham University john heil is a professor of philosophy at Washington University in St Louis and an honorary research associate at Monash University michael j. loux is George N. Shuster Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame e. j. lowe was a professor of philosophy at Durham University fraser macbride is a professor of philosophy at the University of Glasgow anna-sofia maurin is a professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Gothenburg peter van inwagen is John Cardinal O’Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame ix Acknowledgments The chapters collected in this volume had their origin in a conference on the problem of universals in contemporary analytic philosophy held at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy in July 2010. We wish first of all to thank the Scuola Normale Superiore for the financial support and for providing an ideal setting for philosophical discussion. Massimo Mugnai generously offered to co-organize the event and apply for funds. This is the place to express our sincere gratitude to him. Alex Oliver, Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra, and Dean Zimmerman also presented papers at the conference and greatly contributed to discussion. We are very grateful to them for their suggestions, criticisms, and comments, which helped all the contributors to shape their views and improve the final versions of their papers. Thanks go also to Giulia Felappi, Michele Ginammi, Gior- gio Lando, Laura Mari, Valentina Morotti, and Giacomo Turbanti, who helped with the organization of the conference and took an active part in the philosophical discussion. Most of all, they created a lively and intel- lectually stimulating environment, which added value to our proceedings. The conference attracted a number of visitors from Italy and beyond. We wish to thank all the participants for enriching the event with their active presence. We are very grateful to Hilary Gaskin for taking an interest in this book and considering it for publication. Thanks go also to two anonymous referees for Cambridge University Press, who made a number of insightful comments on the chapters and greatly improved the quality of the volume. While this volume was close to completion, we lost two dear friends and colleagues who greatly contributed to our project: E. J. Lowe and Francesco Del Punta. Besides being one of the contributors, Jonathan Lowe was also supposed to be co-editor of the volume. He conceived with us the initial idea of the project and constantly advised us on a number of philosophical and editorial matters. Most of all, however, he was a splendid person, a dear friend and a good example of how to do good metaphysics. x Acknowledgments xi Francesco Del Punta, too, played a crucial role in our project. He was the first to entertain the bold idea of bringing together philosophers and historians of philosophy to talk about the problem of universals. He co-organized with us the 2010 conference and ever since he provided unceasing encouragement in our attempts to bring the volume to comple- tion. He always remained for us a source of inspiration and a severe judge of the quality of our scientific enterprise. During the 2010 conference he said he would watch the end of our works from ‘a rather comfortable cloud.’ We do hope that the cloud is indeed comfortable. This volume is for Jonathan and Francesco. Introduction Gabriele Galluzzo and Michael J. Loux All but one of the chapters in this volume had their origin in a conference on the problem of universals in contemporary analytic philosophy held at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy in July 2010. The conference was part of a larger project under the direction of Francesco Del Punta on the problem of universals across the whole history of philosophy. The aim of the conference was to give a broad overview of the contemporary debate on universals, and to indicate the issues that promise to be crucial to future metaphysical investigation. It is difficult to provide an entirely uncontroversial characterization of what exactly the problem of universals is. This is due to the undeniable fact that the problem intersects with a large number of philosophical areas, ranging from metaphysics to semantics and also including philosophy of mathematics and epistemology. In the history of philosophy the problem has occasionally been described in semantic terms as the question as to whether or not the general terms of natural language refer to and so intr- oduce peculiar kinds of entities, universals, somehow distinct from the familiar particular objects of our everyday experience. Sometimes, philoso- phers in the past have also looked at the problem of universals as an emi- nently epistemic issue, mainly concerned with the nature of our concepts: do general concepts represent general or universal entities or do they simply represent particular entities in a general way? This volume is characterized by a distinctively metaphysical approach to the problem of universals. Con- tributors to the volume share the common assumption that the problem of universals is primarily a metaphysical and ontological issue, mainly con- cerned with how many categories of things we should introduce into our ontology: is the furniture of the world confined exclusively to particular entities? Or do we need to include in the catalogue of things that there are universals as well, i.e. entities that are shared or at least shareable by many particulars? To take this approach does not mean to deny that the problem 1 2 gabriele galluzzo and michael j. loux of universals may be significantly linked with a number of central areas in semantics and epistemology. However, semantic and epistemic issues are here regarded as interesting consequences of a fundamentally metaphysical problem. As the chapters indicate, this volume covers a broad range of topics on the nature and existence of universals and their relation to the particulars that exhibit them. Given the vastness of the contemporary debate on uni- versals and the many ramifications of the problem itself, it would have been impossible to aim at absolute exhaustiveness and completeness. Nonethe- less, we have tried to select those topics that have significantly shaped and continue to shape our understanding of one of the most enduring themes in the history of philosophy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metaphysics. by Peter Van Inwagen Review By: Timothy O'connor the Philosophical Review, Vol
    Philosophical Review Metaphysics. by Peter van Inwagen Review by: Timothy O'Connor The Philosophical Review, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Apr., 1995), pp. 314-317 Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2185999 . Accessed: 25/06/2014 03:49 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Philosophical Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.44.77.146 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:49:57 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions BOOK REVIEWS such issues as the completeness of quantum mechanics and whetherit is a local theory.Part of the problem has been in figuringout what is meant by 'completeness' and 'locality'.A lot of hard work has also been done in designing and performingexperiments to test quantum mechanics and compare it to rival theories. Shimony has made importantcontributions to all aspects of this endeavor-for example, his proof that quantum mechanical nonlocality,what he refersto as passion-at-a-distance,cannot be exploited for the purposes of sending signals at velocitiesgreater than the velocityof light (2:134-36).
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Philosophy the University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-4619 Russell's China Teapot Peter Van Inwagen
    Department of Philosophy The University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-4619 [email protected] Russell’s China Teapot Peter van Inwagen St Thomas Aquinas has presented five well-known arguments for the existence of God, but he has also presented—although not, of course, endorsed—two arguments that might be described as “arguments to the contrary” or as “objections to belief in God.” Summa Theologiae, I, q.2, a.3 (the “Five Ways” article, the article whose topic is indicated by the heading “Whether God exists”) opens with those two arguments. The first, Objection 1, is a version of the argument from evil—the argument that since the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God, God does not exist. The second Objection is as follows: Objection 2. It is, moreover, superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, without supposing God to exist. For all natural things can be accounted for by one principle, which is nature; and all voluntary things can be accounted for by one principle, which is human reason or will. Hence, there is no need to suppose that God exists. Here is a formulation of the essential point of this argument in language the modern mind may find more congenial than Thomas’s talk of “principles”: 2 The only reason we could have for believing in God would be that it was necessary to postulate his existence to account for some observed fact or facts.
    [Show full text]
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Religion
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION VOLUME 4 NUMBER 4 WINTER 2012 ARTICLES David S. ODERBERG Survivalism, Corruptionism, and Mereology 1 Dale JACQUETTE Anselm’s Metaphysics of Nonbeing 27 Erik J. WIELENBERG An Inconsistency in Craig’s Defence of the Moral Argument 49 Andrei A. BUCKAREFF Omniscience, the Incarnation, and Knowledge de se 59 T. Ryan BYERLY Infallible Divine Foreknowledge Cannot Uniquely Threaten Human Freedom, But Its Mechanics Might 73 T. J. MAWSON On Determining How Important It Is Whether or Not There Is a God 95 Jerome GELLMAN A Theistic, Universe-Based, Theodicy of Human Suffering and Immoral Behaviour 107 Anders KRAAL Hedenius’ Soteriological Argument from Evil 123 Peter JONKERS Redefining Religious Truth as a Challenge for Philosophy of Religion 139 Louis CARUANA Science, Religion and Common Sense 161 DISCUSSIONS AND REPLIES John BISHOP In Quest of Authentic Divinity: Critical Notice of Mark Johnston’s ‘Saving God: Religion after Idolatry’ 175 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES Timothy O’Connor. Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency Reviewed by Sho Yamaguchi 193 Georg Gasser (ed.). Personal Identity and Resurrection: How Do We Survive Our Death? Reviewed by Joshua Farris 196 Timothy Yoder. Hume on God: Irony, Deism and Genuine Theism Reviewed by Dan O’Brien 201 Earl Stanley B. Fronda. Wittgenstein’s (Misunderstood) Religious Thought Reviewed by Klaus von Stosch 206 Neil Spurway (ed.). Theology, Evolution and the Mind Reviewed by Aku Visala 208 SURVIVALISM, CORRUPTIONISM, AND MEREOLOGY DAVID S. ODERBERG University of Reading Abstract. Corruptionism is the view that following physical death, the human being ceases to exist (until Resurrection) but their soul persists in the afterlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Argument Where It Leads
    Following The Argument Where It Leads Thomas Kelly Princeton University [email protected] Abstract: Throughout the history of western philosophy, the Socratic injunction to ‘follow the argument where it leads’ has exerted a powerful attraction. But what is it, exactly, to follow the argument where it leads? I explore this intellectual ideal and offer a modest proposal as to how we should understand it. On my proposal, following the argument where it leaves involves a kind of modalized reasonableness. I then consider the relationship between the ideal and common sense or 'Moorean' responses to revisionary philosophical theorizing. 1. Introduction Bertrand Russell devoted the thirteenth chapter of his History of Western Philosophy to the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. He concluded his discussion with a rather unflattering assessment: There is little of the true philosophic spirit in Aquinas. He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better: If he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times (1945: 463). The extent to which this is a fair assessment of Aquinas is controversial.1 My purpose in what follows, however, is not to defend Aquinas; nor is it to substantiate the charges that Russell brings against him.
    [Show full text]
  • Analogies in Physics Analysis of an Unplanned Epistemic Strategy
    . Analogies in Physics Analysis of an Unplanned Epistemic Strategy Von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover zur Erlangung des Grades Doktors der Philosophie Dr. phil. Genehmigte Dissertation von Ing. grad. MA Gunnar Kreisel Erscheinungs- bzw. Druckjahr 2021 Referent: Prof. Dr. Mathias Frisch Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Torsten Wilholt Tag der Promotion: 26.10.2020 2 To my early died sister Uta 3 Acknowledgements I could quote only very few by name who have contributed to my work on this thesis, for discussing some of the developed ideas with me or comments on parts of my manuscript. These are in the first place my advisor Mathias Frisch and further Torsten Wilholt, who read critically individual chapters. Much more have contributed by some remarks or ideas mentioned in passing which I cannot assign to someone explicitly and therefore must be left unnamed. Also, other people not named here have supported my work in the one or other way. I think they know who were meant if they read this. A lot of thanks are due to Zoe Vercelli from the International Writing centre at Leibniz University Hannover improving my English at nearly the whole manuscript (some parts are leaved to me because of organisational changes at the writing centre). So, where the English is less correct Zoe could not have had a look on it. Of course, all errors and imprecisions remain in solely my responsibility. 4 Abstract This thesis investigates what tools are appropriate for answering the question how it is possible to develop such a complex theory in physics as the standard model of particle physics with only an access via electromagnetic interaction of otherwise unobservable objects and their interactions it was investigated what the tools are to do this.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Monism Seriously
    Philos Stud DOI 10.1007/s11098-015-0620-0 Taking monism seriously David M. Cornell1 Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Monism is the view that there is only a single material object in exis- tence: the world. According to this view, therefore, the ordinary objects of common sense—cats and hats, cars and stars, and so on—do not actually exist; there is only the world. Because of this, monism is routinely dismissed in the contemporary literature as being absurd and obviously false. It is simply obvious that there is a plurality of material things, thus it is simply obvious that monism is false, or so the argument goes. I call this the common sense argument against monism and in this paper I offer a response. I argue that providing the monist can make his view consistent with the appearance that there is a multiplicity of material things, then it is not rationally acceptable to reject monism solely on the basis of that appearance. Through an appeal to a particular type of property—distributional properties—I sketch out a plausible story of how monism is perfectly consistent with the appearance of plurality, and thus nullify the common sense argument. There may be any number of arguments that serve to undermine monism, but the common sense argument is not one of them. Monism deserves to be taken more seriously than that. Keywords Monism Á Mereology Á Common sense Á Properties Á Distributional properties & David M. Cornell [email protected] 1 Department of History, Politics, and Philosophy, Manchester Metropolitan University, Geoffrey Manton Building, Rosamund Street West, Manchester M15 6LL, UK 123 D.
    [Show full text]
  • INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS
    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS Volume 173 Robert Ginsberg Founding Editor Peter A. Redpath Executive Editor Associate Editors G. John M. Abbarno Matti Häyry Mary-Rose Barral Steven V. Hicks Gerhold K. Becker Richard T. Hull Raymond Angelo Belliotti Mark Letteri Kenneth A. Bryson Vincent L. Luizzi C. Stephen Byrum Alan Milchman H. G. Callaway George David Miller Robert A. Delfino Alan Rosenberg Rem B. Edwards Arleen L. F. Salles Andrew Fitz-Gibbon John R. Shook Francesc Forn i Argimon Eddy Souffrant William Gay Tuija Takala Dane R. Gordon Anne Waters J. Everet Green John R. Welch Heta Aleksandra Gylling Thomas F. Woods a volume in Cognitive Science CS Francesc Forn i Argimon, Editor INTENTIONALITY Past and Future Edited by Gábor Forrai and George Kampis Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Cover Design: Studio Pollmann The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 90-420-1817-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS Preface vii List of Abbreviations ix ONE The Necessity and Nature of Mental Content 1 LAIRD ADDIS TWO Reading Brentano on the Intentionality of the Mental 15 PHILIP J. BARTOK THREE Emotions, Moods, and Intentionality 25 WILLIAM FISH FOUR Lockean Ideas as Intentional Contents 37 GÁBOR FORRAI FIVE Normativity and Mental Content 51 JUSSI HAUKIOJA SIX The Ontological and Intentional Status of Fregean Senses: An Early Account of External Content 63 GREG JESSON
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 1, Metaphysics, 1987
    Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 1, Metaphysics, 1987 Front Matter (7 pp.) Preface (1 p.) James E. Tomberlin Entities Without Identity, pp. 1-19 Terence Parsons When Are Objects Parts?, pp. 21-47 Peter van Inwagen Existence, pp. 49-108 Nathan Salmon How To Build a Person: The Physical Basis for Mentality, pp. 109-154 John L. Pollock Subjects Among Other Things, pp. 155-187 Ernest Sosa Two Concepts of Modality: Modal Realism and Modal Reductionism, pp. 189-231 Alvin Plantinga Are Concept-Users World-Makers?, pp. 233-267 Nicholas Wolterstorff Conceptual Relativism, pp. 269-288 Bruce Aune The Philosophical Limits of Scientific Essentialism, pp. 289-365 George Bealer Event Causation: The Counterfactual Analysis, pp. 367-386 Jonathan Bennett Phenomenological Ontology Revisited: A Bergmannian Retrospective, pp. 387-404 Jay F. Rosenberg Self-Consciousness, Demonstrative Reference, and the Self-Ascription View of Believing, pp. 405-454 Hector-Neri Castaneda The `Fido'-Fido Theory of Belief, pp. 455-480 Stephen Schiffer Objects of Consciousness: The Non-Relational Theory of Sensing, pp. 481-500 Romane Clark An Argument for a Modified Russellian Principle of Acquaintance, pp. 501-512 Felicia Ackerman Phenomenal Objects: A Backhanded Defense, pp. 513-526 William G. Lycan Back Matter (1 p.) Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 2, Epistemology, 1988 Front Matter (7 pp.) Preface (1 p.) James E. Tomberlin Positive Epistemic Status and Proper Function, pp. 1-50 Alvin Plantinga Strong and Weak Justification, pp. 51-69 Alvin I. Goldman The Evidence of the Senses, pp. 71-90 Roderick M. Chisholm How to be a Fallibilist, pp. 91-123 Stewart Cohen Coherence, Justification, and Chisholm, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Evil and Van Inwagen
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 20 Issue 2 Article 8 4-1-2003 Evil and Van Inwagen Jeff Jordan Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Jordan, Jeff (2003) "Evil and Van Inwagen," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 20 : Iss. 2 , Article 8. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol20/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. EVIL AND VAN INWAGEN Jeff Jordan A proposition employed in many versions of the evidential argument from evil is that every evil is necessary, or God does not exist. This proposition is so widely accepted that we might dub it the "Standard Claim". In several articles Peter van Inwagen has argued that the Standard Claim is false. Van Inwagen's argument depends upon what we might call the UNo Minimum Claim". In this note I argue that the No Minimum Claim is either false or implausible. Theists and nontheists both typically hold that the existence of God is incompatible with the occurrence of any evil which God need not permit in order to bring about a greater good, or to prevent an equally bad or worse evil from occurring. Indeed this view is so widely accepted and so rarely questioned that we will dub it the "Standard Claim." Expressed briefly, the Standard Claim asserts that every evil is necessary, or God does not exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Dissertation
    Animal Suffering in an Unfallen World: A Theodicy of Non-Human Evolution Submitted by Bethany Noël Sollereder to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology In October 2014 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. !2 Abstract The publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 raised a host of theological issues. Chief amongst them is the question of how a good, loving, and powerful God could create through an evolutionary process that involved so much suffering, pain, and violence. The traditional Christian answers for suffering in the natural world are not plausible in an evolutionary world. We cannot blame natural evil on human sin, since earth history shows that non- human suffering long preceded humans. Nor can we say that God allows suffering because it allows opportunity for moral choice, spiritual closeness with God, and the development of virtue, as none of these apply to the non-human realm. A new approach is needed to address the question of suffering and violence amongst non-human animals. In this dissertation, I address the question of evolutionary suffering with a multi-disciplinary approach of biblical studies, philosophical theology, and systematic theology to build a compound theodicy.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Monism∗ Analysis 67 (2007): 1–7
    Against Monism∗ Analysis 67 (2007): 1–7. Final version at: Theodore Sider http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/ toc/anal/67/293 Abstract Jonathan Schaffer distinguishes two sorts of monism. Existence monists say that only one object exists: The World. Priority monists admit the existence of The World’s parts, but say that their features are derivative from the properties of The World. Both have trouble explaining the features of statespace, the set of possibilities available to The World. 1. Monism and pluralism Let’s agree to take ontology seriously. We must then take monism seriously. According to monism, there exists only one (nonabstract1) object: the entire world.2 To be sure, monism clashes with what we ordinarily think and say. But so do other revisionary ontologies that we ought to take seriously. Consider nihilism, the thesis that the only objects that exist are the partless elementary particles of physics.3 Although the nihilist says that tables and chairs do not exist, she is quick to add that there do exist “particles arranged tablewise”, “particles arranged chairwise”, and so on.4 Here are three reasons to take nihilism seriously, despite its revisionary nature. (1) Nihilism is not refuted by mere perception. If there were no tables, only particles arranged tablewise, ∗Thanks to Dave Chalmers, John Hawthorne, Jonathan Schaffer (whose paper “From Nihilism to Monism” sparked my interest in the topic), and especially Frank Arntzenius for discussion of the connection between fundamental properties and statespaces. 1I have no particular de nition of ‘abstract’ in mind; but I mean to count spacetime points, tropes, etc., as concrete.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Time: a Slightly Opinionated Introduction
    Philosophy of time: A slightly opinionated introduction Florian Fischer There are several intertwined debates in the area of contemporary philos- ophy of time. One field of inquiry is the nature of time itself. Presentists think that only the present moment exists whereas eternalists believe that all of (space-)time exists on a par. The second main field of inquiry is the question of how objects persist through time. The endurantist claims that objects are three-dimensional wholes, which persist by being wholly1 present, whereas the perdurantist thinks that objects are four- dimensional and that their temporal parts are the bearers of properties. The third debate in the field of contemporary philosophy of time is about tense- versus tenseless theory. Tensers are at odds with detensers about the status of the linguistic reference to the present moment. These are only very crude characterizations and it is even disputed by some ad- vocates of the corresponding positions that they are accurate. However this very sketchy picture already reveals a fundamental difference: The eternalism/presentism and endurance/perdurance discussions belong to the field of metaphysics, whereas tense is in the first instance a linguistic phenomenon. Among the many fields of philosophy, there are two that are more intimately interconnected than most but whose practi- tioners have too long pursued relatively independent paths. On the one hand, there are philosophers of language, who have devoted much attention to indexicals (`now', etc.), tem- poral operators (`it has been the case that', etc.), and tensed sentences. On the other hand, there are the philosophers of tensed and tenseless time (also called A-time or B-time, dynamic time or static time, etc.).
    [Show full text]