Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 357–390

Relational Complexes

Open Access


A theory of relations is presented that provides a detailed account of the logical structure of relational complexes. The theory draws a sharp distinction between relational complexes and relational states. A salient difference is that relational complexes belong to exactly one relation, whereas relational states may be shared by different relations. Relational complexes are conceived as structured perspectives on states ‘out there’ in reality. It is argued that only relational complexes have occurrences of objects, and that different complexes of the same relation may correspond to the same state.


Relational complex Relational state Substitution 


  1. 1.
    Armstrong, D. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker, R. (1992). CASE*Method: entity relationship modelling. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell, D. (1996). The formation of concepts and the structure of thoughts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LVI, 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bermúdez, J. L. (2001). Frege on thoughts and their structure. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy, 4, 87–105.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolzano, B. (1975). Paradoxien des Unendlichen. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fine, K. (1982). First-order modal theories III—facts. Synthese, 53, 43–122.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. The Philosophical Review, 109, 1–33.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fine, K. (2007). Semantic relationism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frege, G. (1963). Compound thoughts. Trans. by R. H. Stoothoff. Mind, 72(285), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frege, G. (1983). Logik in der Mathematik. In H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & F. Kaulbach (Eds.), Nachgelassene Schriften (pp. 219–270). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frege, G. (2000). Begriffsschrift. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (pp. 5–82). New York: toExcel.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frege, G. (2003). Der Gedanke—eine logische Untersuchung. In G. Patzig (Ed), Logische Untersuchungen (pp 35–62). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frege, G. (2003). Logische Untersuchungen—Dritter Teil: Gedankengefüge. In G. Patzig (Ed.), Logische Untersuchungen (pp. 85–107). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodes, H. (1982). The composition of Fregean thoughts. Philosophical Studies, 41(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leo, J. (2008). Modeling relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 353–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leo, J. (2008). The identity of argument-places. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leo, J. (2010). Modeling occurrences of objects in relations. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3(1), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, D. (2002). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linsky, B. (2003). The metaphysics of logical atomism. In N. Griffin (Ed.) The Cambridge companion to Bertrand Russell (pp. 371–391). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacBride, F. (2005). The particular-universal distinction: a dogma of metaphysics? Mind, 114, 565–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell, B. (1956). The philosophy of logical atomism. In R. C. Marsh (Ed.), Logic and knowledge, essays 1901–1950 (pp. 175–281). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russell, B. (1972). The principles of mathematics. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russell, B. (1984). Theory of knowledge. In E. R. Eames (Ed.), Theory of knowledge, the 1913 manuscript. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Russell, B. (2005). My philosophical development. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Simons, P. (1992). The old problem of complex and fact. In J. T. J. Srzednicki (Ed.), Philosophy and logic in central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski: Selected essays (pp. 319–338). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thalheim, B. (2000). Entity-relationship modeling: Foundations of database technology. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wittgenstein, L. (1975). Philosophical remarks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Notebooks, 1914–1916. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations