, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 527–546 | Cite as

The Partial Identity Account of Partial Similarity Revisited



This paper provides a defence of the account of partial resemblances between properties according to which such resemblances are due to partial identities of constituent properties. It is argued, first of all, that the account is not only required by realists about universals à la Armstrong, but also useful (of course, in an appropriately re-formulated form) for those who prefer a nominalistic ontology for material objects. For this reason, the paper only briefly considers the problem of how to conceive of the structural universals first posited by Armstrong in order to explain partial resemblances, and focuses instead on criticisms that have been levelled against the theory (by Pautz, Eddon, Denkel and Gibb) and that apply regardless of one’s preferred ontological framework. The partial identity account is defended from these objections and, in doing so, a hitherto quite neglected connection—between the debate about partial similarity as partial identity and that concerning ontological finitism versus infinitism—is looked at in some detail.


Partial identity Partial similarity Property Structural Conjunctive Ontological finitism Ontological infinitism 


  1. Armstrong, D. (1978). Universals and scientific realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. (1986). In defence of structural universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64, 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, D. (1988). Are quantities relations? A Reply to Bigelow and Pargetter. Philosophical Studies, 54, 305–316.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, D. (1989). Universals: An opinionated introduction. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  5. Armstrong, D. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beisbart, C. (2009). How to fix directions or are assignments of vector characteristics attributions of intrinsic properties? Dialectica, 63, 503–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradley, F. (1893). Appearance and reality. A Metaphysical Essay. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Busse, R. (2009). Humean supervenience, vectorial fields, and the spinning sphere. Dialectica, 63, 449–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron, R. P. (2008). Turtles all the way down: regress, priority and fundamentality. Philosophical Quarterly, 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. Denkel, A. (1998). Resemblance cannot be partial identity. Philosophical Quarterly, 48, 200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eddon, M. (2007). Armstrong on quantities and resemblance. Philosophical Studies, 136, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrest, P. (1986). Ways worlds could be. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forrest, P. (2009). Vectors on curved space. Dialectica, 63, 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibb, S. (2007). Is the partial identity account of property resemblance logically incoherent? Dialectica, 61, 539–558.Google Scholar
  15. Hawley, K. (2009). Identity and indiscernibility. Mind, 118, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawley, K. (2010). Mereology, modality and magic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1986). Against structural universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDaniel, K. (2009). Structure-making. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morganti, M. (2009). Ontological priority, fundamentality and monism. Dialectica, 63, 271–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mormann, T. (2010). Structural universals as structural parts: toward a general theory of parthood and composition. Axiomathes, 20, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pautz, A. (1997). An argument against Armstrong’s analysis of the resemblance of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75, 109–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quinton, A. (1973). The nature of things. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Noûs, 37, 498–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaffer, J. (2004). Two conceptions of sparse properties. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 85, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams, J. R. G. (2007). The possibility of onion worlds. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zukunftskolleg and Department of PhilosophyUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations