Erkenntnis

, Volume 74, Issue 1, pp 69–79

An Argument for the Existence of Tropes

Original Article

Abstract

That there could be ontologically complex concrete particulars is self-evidently true. A reductio may however be formulated which contradicts this truth. In this paper I argue that all of the reasonable ways in which we might refute this reductio will require the existence of at least some tropes.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1978a). Nominalism & realism: Universals & scientific realism (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (1978b). A theory of universals: Universals & scientific realism (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Against ostrich nominalism: A reply to Michael Devitt. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 440–449.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D. M. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong, D. M. (2004). Truth and truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armstrong, D. M. (2005). How do particulars stand to universals? In D. W. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 1, pp. 139–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, D. M. (2006). Particulars have their properties of necessity. In P. F. Strawson & A. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Universals, concepts and qualities—new essays on the meaning of predicates. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Beebee, H., & Dodd, J. (Eds.). (2005). Truthmakers: The contemporary debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bradley, F. H. (1908) [1893]. Appearance and reality (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cameron, R. (2005). Truthmaker necessitarianism and maximalism. Logique et Analyse, 48, 43–56.Google Scholar
  11. Cameron, R. (2008). Truthmakers and ontological commitment. Philosophical Studies, 140(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chisholm, R. (1976). Person and object. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Loux, M. J. (1998). Metaphysics—a contemporary introduction. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maurin, A.-S. (2002). If tropes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Maurin, A.-S. (2007). Infinite regress: Virtue or vice? In T. Ronnow-Rasmussen, B. Petersson, J. Josefsson, & D. Egonsson (Eds.), Hommage à Wlodek. URL: http://www.fil.lu.se/HommageaWlodek.
  17. Maurin, A.-S. (2009). A world of tropes? In R. Vanderbeeken & B. D’Hooghe (Eds.), Worldviews science and us: Studies of analytical metaphysics. Brussels: World Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Maurin, A.-S. (2010). Trope theory and the Bradley regress. Synthese, 175(3), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Molnar, G. (2003). Powers. In A study in metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, G. E. (1959). A defence of common sense. Philosophical papers. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  21. Simons, P. (1992). Logical atomism and its ontological refinement: A defense. In K. Mulligan (Ed.), Language, truth and ontology (pp. 157–179). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Simons, P. (1994). Particulars in particular clothing: Three trope theories of substance. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54(3), 553–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zimmerman, D. W. (1997). Distinct indiscernibles and the bundle theory. Mind, 106(422), 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Filosofiska InstitutionenLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations