, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 267–292 | Cite as

Quality Instances and the Structure of the Concrete Particular

  • Aaron Preston


In this paper, I examine a puzzle that emerges from what J. P. Moreland has called the traditional realist view of quality instances. Briefly put, the puzzle is to figure out how quality instances fit into the overall structure of a concrete particular, given that the traditional realist view of quality instances prima facie seems incompatible with what might be called the traditional realist view of concrete particulars. After having discussed the traditional realist views involved and the puzzle that emerges from their juxtaposition, I propose an alternative realist view of quality instances which resolves the puzzle. In short, the puzzle is solved by treating the distinction between a concrete particular and its quality instances as a distinction of reason, and by adopting the view that the individuating element of a concrete particular must also serve as its unifying element – a view which Moreland, one of traditional realism’s most stalwart contemporary defenders, rejects.


abstract particulars concrete particulars J. P. Moreland ontology part–whole relation properties quality instances realism universals 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aaron, R. I. 1952The Theory of UniversalsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaire, E. B. 1963

    ‘Existence, Independence, and Universals’

    Allaire, E. B. eds. Iowa Publications in Ontology, Vol. 1. Essays in OntologyMartinus NijhoffThe Hague113
    Google Scholar
  3. Allaire, E. B. 1970

    ‘Bare Particulars’

    Loux, M. J. eds. Universals and Particulars: Readings in OntologyUniversity of Notre Dame PressNotre Dame281290
    Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D. 1989Universals: An Opinionated IntroductionWestview PressBoulderGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergmann, G. 1967Realism: A Critique of Brentano and MeinongThe University of Wisconsin PressMadison, Milwaukee, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Boler, J. F. 1963Charles Pierce and Scholastic RealismUniversity of Washington PressSeattleGoogle Scholar
  7. Brower, J.: 2001, ‘Medieval Theories of Relations,’ in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2001 Edition), URL = <>.Google Scholar
  8. Brownstein, D. 1973Aspects of the Problem of UniversalsUniversity of Kansas PressLawrenceGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, K. 1997

    ‘The Metaphysic of Abstract Particulars’

    Mellor, Oliver,  eds. PropertiesOxford University PressOxford125139
    Google Scholar
  10. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume V, ‘Bl. John Duns Scotus’, Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company, Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight, URL= <>.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, G. 1995On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of FormsOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilson, E. 1949Being and Some PhilosophersPontifical Institute of Medieval StudiesTorontoGoogle Scholar
  13. Husserl, E. 1970Logical InvestigationsHumanity BooksNew York2 Vol., J. N. Findlay (tr.).Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, F. 1984‘What is Aristotle’s Theory of Essence?’Canadian Journal of Philosophy1089131Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, F. 1992Substance and Predication in AristotleCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Maurer, A. 1962Medieval PhilosophyRandom HouseNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Moore G. E.: 1900–1901, ‘Identity’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 103–127.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, G. E.: 1923, ‘Are the Characteristics of Particular Things Universal or Particular?’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 3 (reprinted in Moore’s Philosophical Papers, New York: Collier Books 1962, pp. 17–32).Google Scholar
  19. Moore, G. E. 1953Some Main Problems of PhilosophyGeorge Allen & UnwinLondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreland, J. P. 1989a‘Keith Campbell and the Trope View of Predication’Australasian Journal of Philosophy67379393Google Scholar
  21. Moreland, J. P. 1989‘Was Husserl a Nominalist?’Philosophy and Phenomenological Research49661674Google Scholar
  22. Moreland, J. P. 1996‘Issues and Options in Exemplification’American Philosophical Quarterly33133147Google Scholar
  23. Moreland, J. P. 1998‘Theories of Individuation: A Reconsideration of Bare Particulars’Pacific Philosophical Quarterly79251263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreland, J. P. 2001UniversalsMcGill-Queen’s University PressMontreal and KingstonGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreland, J. P., Rae, S. B. 2000Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in EthicsInterVarsity PressDowners GroveGoogle Scholar
  26. Owens, J.: 1956, Reportatio: The Essential and Accidental Character of Being, and the Historical Controversy Surrounding the Problem of the Real Distinction, unpublished manuscript, J. R. Catan (ed.), URL = <>.Google Scholar
  27. Owens, J. 1992Cognition: An Epistemological EnquiryCenter for Thomistic StudiesHoustonGoogle Scholar
  28. Reeve, C. D. C. 2000Substantial Knowledge: Aristotle’s MetaphysicsHackettIndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  29. Scaltsas, T. 1994Substances and Universals in Aristotle’s MetaphysicsCornell University PressIthacaGoogle Scholar
  30. Seargent, D: 1985, Plurality and Continuity: An Essay in G. F. Stout’s Theory of Universals, Dordrecht, Boston, Lancater: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, B. 1994Austrian Philosophy: The Legacy of Franz BrentanoOpen CourtChicago and La SalleGoogle Scholar
  32. Spade, P. V: 1995, History of the Problem of Universals in the Middle Ages: Notes and Text, unpublished course packet, URL = <>.Google Scholar
  33. Stout, G. F. 1923, ‘Are the Characteristics of Particular Things Universal or Particular?’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Suppl. Vol. 3.Google Scholar
  34. Stout, G. F.: 1936, ‘Universals Again.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 15.Google Scholar
  35. Suarez, F.: 1947, On the Various Kinds of Distinctions(Disputationes Metaphysicae, Disputatio VII, de variis distinctionum generibus), Trans. Cyril Vollert, S. J., Milwaukee: S.T.D, Marquet University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tweedale, M.M. 1999Scotus vs Ockham: A Medieval Dispute over UniversalsThe Edwin Mellon PressLewiston, Queenston, Lampeter2 Vol.Google Scholar
  37. Wedin, M. V. 2000Aristotle’s Theory of Substance: The Categories and Metaphysics ZetaOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Willard, D.: 1964, Meaning and Universals in Husserl’s Logische Untersuchungen. Madison: University of Wisconsin doctoral dissertation, available through University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  39. Willard, D. 1984Logic and the Objectivity of KnowledgeOhio University PressAthens, OHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron Preston

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations