Philosophia

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 375–391 | Cite as

Rea’s Revenge and the Persistent Problem of Persistence for Realism

Article
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

Realism about material objects faces a variety of epistemological objections. Recently, however, some realists have offered new accounts in response to these long-standing objections; many of which seem plausible. In this paper, I raise a new objection against realism vis-à-vis how we could empirically come to know mind-independent essential properties for objects. Traditionally, realists hold kind-membership and persistence as bound together for purposes of tracing out an object’s essential existence conditions. But I propose kind-membership and persistence for objects can conceptually come apart and function epistemologically distinctly from one another—in which case the usual reliance by realists on an assumption of persistence to determine kind-membership conditions is unjustified. Thus, present realist attempts to explain how empirical detection of mind-independent essential properties for objects could possibly occur inevitably results in circularity. The charge against the realist is to explain why we don’t have to first discover persistence conditions for an object before we can ascertain kind-membership conditions for an object. If no answer is forthcoming, then it seems the weight of the epistemological objection to realism is back in full force.

Keywords

Metaphysical realism Persistence Material objects Elder Rea 

References

  1. Elder, C. L. (2004). Real natures and familiar objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Elder, C. L. (2006). Conventionalism and realism-imitating counterfactuals. Philosophical Quarterly, 56, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Elder, C. L. (2007). Conventionalism and the world as bare sense-data. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elder, C. L. (2010a). Carving up a reality in which there are no joints. In S. D. Hales (Ed.), A companion to relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Elder, C. L. (2010b). Familiar objects and their shadows. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Mackie, P. (2006). How things might have been: individuals, kinds, and essential properties. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mackie, P. (2008). Material objects and metaphysics. Journal of Philosophy, 105(12), 756–771.Google Scholar
  8. Melnyk, A. (2005). Rea on naturalism. Philo 7.Google Scholar
  9. Rea, M. (2000). Naturalism and material objects. In J. P. Moreland & W. L. Craig (Eds.), Naturalism: A critical analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Rea, M. (2002). World without design: The ontological consequences of naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rea, M. (2005). Replies to critics. Philo, 7, 163–174.Google Scholar
  12. Schwartz, S. (2009). The essence of essence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 609–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sidelle, A. (1989). Necessity, essence, and individuation: A defense of conventionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sidelle, A. (1998). A sweater unraveled: Following one thread of thought for avoiding coincident entities. Noûs, 32, 423–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thomasson, A. (2007). Ordinary objects. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations