This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Cf. “... attributes are themselves particular, the whiteness of a surface being a particular whiteness.”Statement and Inference (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926), vol. 2, p. 713.
“The Nature of Universals and Propositions,”Studies in Philosophy and Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930), pp. 384ff.
In lectures.
Helen Knight, “Stout on Universals,” Mind, n.s., 45:45ff (1936).
Ibid., p. 55.
An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (New York: W. W. Norton, 1940), p. 103.
Ibid., p. 100.
“The Problems of Universals,”Polemic, 2:27.
P. A. Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1944), p. 685; my italics.
Mind, n.s., 58 (1949).
Aristotelian Society Proceedings, 34:63ff (1934).
Some suspicion of this may have induced William Kneale to give a different analysis of the eventBlue here now. He too wishes to show that the analysis of this event uncovers a situation “like that which would have resulted in the old theory if it could have been shown that we are acquainted only with universals.” But he significantly points out that to say even that “the elements of the event have instances” is to “suggest that it is not the same blue or the same now which is an element in different events.” There is some recognition here that to speak of instances at all is to concede that an instance of blue is inBlue here now and adifferent instance of it inBlue there then. “The Objects of Acquaintance,”Aristotelian Society Proceedings, 34:187ff (1934).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, J.R. Simple particulars. Philos Stud 1, 65–74 (1950). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199406
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02199406