The bundle theory and the substratum theory: deadly enemies or twin brothers?
- Jiri Benovsky
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In this paper, I explore several versions of the bundle theory and the substratum theory and compare them, with the surprising result that it seems to be true that they are equivalent (in a sense of ‘equivalent’ to be specified). In order to see whether this is correct or not, I go through several steps: first, I examine different versions of the bundle theory with tropes and compare them to the substratum theory with tropes by going through various standard objections and arguing for a tu quoque in all cases. Emphasizing the theoretical role of the substratum and of the relation of compresence, I defend the claim that these views are equivalent for all theoretical purposes. I then examine two different versions of the bundle theory with universals, and show that one of them is, here again, equivalent to the substratum theory with universals, by examining how both views face the famous objection from Identity of Indiscernibles in a completely parallel way. It is only the second, quite extreme and puzzling, version of the bundle theory with universals that is not equivalent to any other view; and the diagnosis of why this is so will show just how unpalatable the view is. Similarly, only a not-so-palatable version of the substratum theory is genuinely different from the other views; and here again it’s precisely what makes it different that makes it less appealing.
- Ehring, Douglas (2001). Temporal parts and bundle theory. Philosophical Studies, 104, 163–168. CrossRef
- Hawthorne, John (1995). The bundle theory of substance and the identity of indiscernibles. Analysis, 55.3, 191–196. CrossRef
- Hawthorne, J., & Cover, J. A. (1998). A world of Universals. Philosophical Studies, 91, 205–219. CrossRef
- Johnston, Mark (1987). Is there a problem about persistence? The Aristotelian Society, 61, 107–135.
- Lewis, David (1983). New work for a theory of Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377. CrossRef
- Loux M. J. (eds.) (2001). Metaphysics contemporary readings. Routledge.
- Sider, Ted (2006). Bare particulars. Philosophical Perspectives, 20, 387–397. CrossRef
- Simons, Peter (1994). Particulars in particular clothing: Three trope theories of substance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 553–575. CrossRef
- Vallicella, William (1997). Bundles and indiscernibility: A reply to O’Leary-Hawthorne. Analysis, 1, 91–94. CrossRef
- Van Cleve, James (1985). Three versions of the bundle theory. Reprinted in Loux 2001.
- Van Inwagen, Peter (1985). Plantinga on trans-world identity. Reprinted in Van Inwagen 2001.
- Van Inwagen, Peter (2001). Ontology, identity and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- The bundle theory and the substratum theory: deadly enemies or twin brothers?
Volume 141, Issue 2 , pp 175-190
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Bundle theory
- Substratum theory
- Metaphysical equivalence
- Identity of indiscernibles
- Jiri Benovsky (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, University of Fribourg, Avenue de l’Europe 20, Fribourg, 1700, Switzerland