Many philosophers think all abstract objects are causally inert. Here, focusing on novels, I argue that some abstracta are causally efficacious. First, I defend a straightforward argument for this view. Second, I outline an account of object causation—an account of how objects (as opposed to events) cause effects. This account further supports the view that some abstracta are causally efficacious.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
I offer no account here of what makes abstract objects abstract. Although I assume that abstract objects have no spatial location, there are issues with positing this as a full account of abstractness. For instance, mental objects (and God according to some theists) are neither abstract nor spatially located.
See, for instance, Thomasson (1999) and Salmon (1998) for defenses of fictional characters being abstract artifacts, Kaplan (1990) for a defense of words being such, Levinson (1980) and Evnine (2007) for a defense of musical works being such, and Cole (2004) for a defense of corporations being such. See, for instance, Dodd (2000) and Kivy (1987) for defenses of the view that musical works are discovered rather than created.
More precisely, Cresswell thinks propositions are causal in some sense but non-causal in another sense.
Maddy no longer endorses this view of sets. See, for instance, Maddy (2007), especially Part IV.
For rhetorical purposes I am talking as if events are not objects.
Fair (1979) offers a seminal defense of this view.
Granted, some interpretations of quantum mechanics (and alternatives to quantum mechanics) are, at least arguably, consistent with there being no causation at a distance. See, for instance, Price (1996) for related discussion of many-worlds interpretations, many-minds interpretations, and retrocausal interpretations. Proponents of the energy transfer view may insist we eschew interpretations that include causation at a distance. This raises methodological questions about whether a metaphysical theory of causation should influence how we interpret quantum mechanics.
Alternatively, one could argue that these cases do not genuinely involve causal overdetermination. See Thomasson (2007), especially Chapter 1, for related discussion.
Juvshik himself is likely not an error theorist. He is ostensibly more sympathetic to the paraphrasing strategy considered in Section 4.
One might think the culprit in (1b) is the plural pronoun ‘them’, given that its antecedent, ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’, is a singular term. But it will not help to replace ‘them’ with a singular pronoun that purportedly denotes anything other than the novel. For instance, ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin caused many Americans to support abolition; much of it (=the total collection of copies of Uncle Tom’s Cabin) has been lost’ is infelicitous, even though the anaphoric pronoun purportedly denotes a single object (the collection of copies of the novel).
Recall that when I talk of objects causing an effect, this is consistent with them being merely partial causes.
I assume all causal explanations are true. This is purely terminological.
Bach, K. (1987). Thought and reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balaguer, M. (2001). Platonism and anti-Platonism in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beebee, H. (2004). Causing and nothingness. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 291–308). MIT Press.
Benacerraf, P. (1973). Mathematical truth. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 661–679.
Brock, S., Maslen, C., & Ngai, J. (2013). A puzzle about fictional characters. In Fictionalism to Realism: Fictional and Other Social Entities, Carola Barbero, Maurizio Ferraris, and Alberto Voltolini (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burgess, J. P., & Rosen, G. (1997). A subject with no object: Strategies for Nominalistic interpretation of mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Callard, B. (2007). The conceivability of Platonism. Philosophia Mathematica, 15(3), 347–356.
Caplan, B., & Matheson, C. (2004). Can a musical work be created. British Journal of Aesthetics, 44(2), 113–134.
Cole, J. (2004). An abstract status function account of corporations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 44(1), 23–44.
Cresswell, M. (2010). Abstract entities in the causal order. Theoria, 76, 249–265.
Dodd, J. (2000). Musical works as eternal types. British Journal of Aesthetics, 40(4), 424–440.
Dodd, J. (2007). Works of music: An essay in ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Douglass, F. (2003). The life and times of Frederick Douglass. Dover Publications.
Dowe, P. (2004). Causes are physically connected to their effects: Why preventers and omissions are not causes. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science, chapter 9, Blackwell (p. 2004).
Dummett, M. A. E. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of language. Harper & Row.
Evnine, S. (2009). Constitution and qua objects in the ontology of music. British Journal of Aesthetics, 49(3), 203–217.
Fair, D. (1979). Causation and the flow of energy. Erkenntnis, 14, 219–250.
Friedman, J. (2005). Modal Platonism, an easy way to avoid ontological commitment to abstract Entitites. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34(4), 227–273.
Juvshik, T. (2018). Abstract objects, causal efficacy, and causal exclusion. Erkenntnis, 83, 805–827.
Kaplan, D. (1990). Words. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 64(1), 93–119.
Kim, J. (1993). Supervenience and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kivy, P. (1987). Platonism in music: Another kind of defense. American Philosophical Quarterly, 24(3), 233–244.
Levinson, J. (1980). What a musical work is. Journal of Philosophy, 70(1), 5–28.
Lin, M. (2017). Time, causation, and abstract objects. Unpublished Manuscript.
Linsky, B., & Zalta, E. (1995). Naturalized Platonism versus Platonized naturalism. The Journal of Philosophy., 92(10), 525–555.
Maddy, P. (1990). Realism in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maddy, P. (2007). Second philosophy: A naturalistic method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parsons, C. (2008). Mathematical thoughts and its object. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Price, H. (1996). Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point: New directions for the physics of time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosen, Gideon. (2017). “Abstract objects.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/abstract-objects/>.
Schaffer, J. (2000). Causation by disconnection. Philosophy of Science, 67(2), 285–300.
Sider, T. (2003). What’s so bad about Overdetermination? Philosophy and Phenomenology Research., 67, 719–726.
Thomasson, A. (1999). Fiction and metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomasson, A. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Inwagen, P. (2007). “A materialist ontology of the human person”. Persons: Human and Divine (van Inwagen, Zimmerman, eds.) (pp. 199–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
For helpful comments and discussion, thanks to Mark Balaguer, James Van Cleve, Sam Cumming, Katrina Elliott, Ashley Feinsinger, Deborah Friedell, Pamela Hieronymi, Andrew Jewell, Tim Juvshik, Dominic Lopes, Michaela McSweeney, Eliot Michaelson, Margaret Moore, Terence Parsons, Jessica Pepp, Gabe Rabin, Katherine Ritchie, Sheldon Smith, John Woods, Michel-Antoine Xhignesse, and audiences at the University of British Columbia, Temple University, Occidental College, and the Central European University Summer School in Ontology and Metaontology.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Friedell, D. Abstracta Are Causal. Philosophia 48, 133–142 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-019-00073-9
- Abstract objects
- Object causation