Advertisement

Axiomathes

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 551–566 | Cite as

How to Individuate Universals—Or Not

  • Richard Brian DavisEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, J. P. Moreland (2013) extends his theory of individuation to include universals. In this note, I show how Moreland’s novel proposal leads to the unwanted conclusion that every concrete particular exists of necessity and has but a single essential property.

Keywords

Universals Individuation Mereological wholes Bare particulars 

References

  1. Armstrong DM (1997) A world of states of affairs. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey A (2012) No bare particulars. Philos Stud 158:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell K (1976) Metaphysics: an introduction. Dickenson Publishing Company, EncinoGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell K (1990) Abstract particulars. Basil Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke S (1998) A demonstration of the being and attributes of god and other writings. In: Vailati E (ed) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis RB (2003) ‘Partially Clad’ bare particulars exposed. Australas J Philos 81:534–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis RB (2004) The brave new bare particularism. Mod Schoolman 81:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis RB, Brown DS (2008) A puzzle for particulars? Axiomathes 18:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gensler H (1990) Symbolic logic: classical and advanced systems. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  10. Giberman D (2013) Against zero-dimensional material objects (and other bare particulars). Philos Stud. doi: 10.1007/s11098-011-9720-7
  11. Gould P (2013) How does an Aristotelian substance have its platonic properties? Issues and options. Axiomathes. doi: 10.1007/s10516-011-9147-y
  12. Konyndyk K (1986) Introductory modal logic. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  13. Loux M (2006) Metaphysics: a contemporary introduction, 3rd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Lowe EJ (2003) Individuation. In: Loux MJ, Zimmerman DW (eds) The oxford handbook of metaphysics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 75–95Google Scholar
  15. Mertz DW (2001) Individuation and instance ontology. Australas J Philos 79:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mertz DW (2003) Against bare particulars: a response to Moreland and Pickavance. Australas J Philos 81:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moreland JP (1989) Keith Campbell and the trope view of predication. Australas J Philos 67:379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moreland JP (1998) Theories of individuation: a reconsideration of bare particulars. Pac Philos Q 79:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moreland JP (2000) Issues and options in individuation. Grazer Philos Stud 60:31–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreland JP (2001) Universals. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal & KingstonGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreland JP (2013) Exemplification and constituent realism: a clarification and modest defense. Axiomathes. doi: 10.1007/s10516-011-9148-x
  22. Moreland JP, Pickavance T (2003) Bare particulars and individuation: a reply to Mertz. Australas J Philos 81:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morganti M (2011) Substrata and properties: from bare particulars to supersubstantivalism. Metaphysica 12:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oaklander LN, Rothstein A (2000) Loux on particulars: bare and concrete. Mod Schoolman 78:97–102Google Scholar
  25. Pickavance T (2009) In defence of ‘partially clad’ bare particulars. Australas J Philos 87:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Plantinga A (1974) The nature of necessity. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Plantinga A (1985) Reply to kit fine. In: Tomberlin JE, van Inwagen P (eds) Alvin Plantinga. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp 329–349Google Scholar
  28. Preston A (2005) Quality instances and the structure of the concrete particular. Axiomathes 15:267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sider T (2006) Bare particulars. Philos Perspect 20:387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ten Elshof GA (2000) A defense of moderate haecceitism. Grazer Philos Stud 60:55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Inwagen P (2001) Ontology, identity, and modality: essays in metaphysics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTyndale University CollegeTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations