Acta Analytica

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 135–154 | Cite as

More Problems for MaxCon: Contingent Particularity and Stuff-Thing Coincidence



Ned Markosian argues (Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76:213-228, 1998a; Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82:332-340, 2004a, The Monist 87:405-428, 2004b) that simples are ‘maximally continuous’ entities. This leads him to conclude that there could be non-particular ‘stuff’ in addition to things. I first show how an ensuing debate on this issue McDaniel (Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81(2):265-275, 2003); Markosian (Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82:332-340, 2004a) ended in deadlock. I attempt to break the deadlock. Markosian’s view entails stuff-thing coincidence, which I show is just as problematic as the more oft-discussed thing-thing coincidence. Also, the view entails that every particular is only contingently so. If there is a world W like our own, but with ether, then there would be only one object in W. But, since merely adding ether to a world does not destroy the entities in it, then W contains counterparts of all the entities in the actual world—they just are not things. Hence, if simples are maximally continuous, then every actual particular is only contingently so. This in turn entails the following disjunction: (i) identity is contingent or intransitive, or (ii) there are no things at all in the actual world, or (iii) the distinction between stuff and things is one without a difference. I recommend that we reject this stuff-thing dualism.


Stuff ontology Substance Simples Ordinary objects Coincidence Material constitution Mereology 


  1. Burke, M. (1994). Preserving the principle of one object to a place: a novel account of the relations among objects, sorts, sortals, and persistence conditions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 591–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burke, M. (1997). Coinciding objects: reply to Lowe and Denkel. Analysis, 57, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartwright, R. (1975). Scattered objects. In K. Lehrer (Ed.), Analysis and metaphysics (pp. 153–171). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Chisholm, R. (1976). Person and object. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Eklund, M. (2008). The picture of reality as an amorphous lump. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & Dean W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in Metaphysics. Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
  6. Gallois, A. (1998). Occasions of identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hobbes, T., (1642) Thomas White’s ‘De Mundo’ Examined, tr. Harold Whitmore Jones. London: Bradford University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. Hobbes, T., (1992) the collected works of Thomas Hobbes. W. Molesworth (Ed.), 11 vols. London, 1839–45; facsimile edn.: London: Routledge Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
  9. Holden, T. (2004). The architecture of matter: Galileo to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horgan, T., & Potrč, M. (2008). Austere realism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jubien, M. (1993). Ontology, modality, and the fallacy of reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Laycock, H. (1975). Theories of matter. Synthese, 31, 411–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Laycock, H. (2002). Object, The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), URL = The citation above refers to the version in the following archive edition: *Winter 2002 (first archived).
  14. Laycock, H. (2006). Words without objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. (1999). Many, but almost one. Reprinted in Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Markosian, N. (1998a). Simples. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76, 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markosian, N. (1998b). Brutal composition. Philosophical Studies, 92, 211–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Markosian, N. (2004a). Soc it to Me? Reply to McDaniel on MaxCon simples. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markosian, N. (2004b). Simples, stuff, and simple people. The Monist 87 (pp. 405–428).Google Scholar
  20. McDaniel, K. (2003). Against Maxcon simples. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81(2), 265–275.Google Scholar
  21. Mill, J. S. (1874). System of logic. London: Longman’s.Google Scholar
  22. Olson, E. (1997). The human animal: personal identity without psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Olson, E. (2002). What does functionalism tell us about personal identity? Nous (pp. 682–697).Google Scholar
  24. Pelletier, F. J., & Schubert, L. K. (1989). Mass Expressions, in Handbook of Philosophical Logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  25. Rea, M. (2001). How to be an eleatic monist. Philosophical Perspectives, 15, 129–152.Google Scholar
  26. Reid, T. (1863). Essays on the intellectual powers of man, in the works of Thomas Reid. In Sir W. Hamilton (Ed.), 2 vols. (facsimile edn.: Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  27. Rudder Baker, L. (2000). Persons and bodies: a constitution view. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Russell, B. (1937). The principles of mathematics (2nd ed.). London: George Allen &Unwin.Google Scholar
  29. Scala, M. (2002). Homogenous simples. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64(2), 393–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaffer, J. (2009). Spacetime the one substance. Philosophical Studies, 145(1), 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaffer, J. (2010a). The least discerning and most promiscuous truthmaker. Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schaffer, J. (2010b). Monism: the priority of the whole. Philosophical Review 119.1.Google Scholar
  33. Seibt, J. (2000). The dynamic constitution of things. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 72, 241–278.Google Scholar
  34. Shoemaker, S. (1999a). Eric Olson: the human animal. Nous, 33, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shoemaker, S. (1999b). Self, body and coincidence. Aristotelian society Supplement p. 79.Google Scholar
  36. Sider, T. (2001). Maximality and intrinsic properties. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sider, T. (2008a). Yet another paper on the supervenience argument against coincident entities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77, 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sider, T. (2008b). Monism and statespace structure. In R. Le Poidevin (Ed.) Being: Developments in contemporary metaphysics Cambridge pp. 129–150.Google Scholar
  39. Silver, B. (1998). The ascent of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Simons, P. (2004). Extended simples: a third way between atoms and gunk. The Monist, 87(3), 371–384.Google Scholar
  41. Steen, M. (2008). Chisholm's changing conception of ordinary objects. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 76.Google Scholar
  42. Unger, P. (1980). The problem of the many. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5, 411–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wasserman, R. (2002). The standard objection to the standard account. Philosophical Studies, 111, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zimmerman, D. (1995). Theories of masses and problems of constitution. Philosophical Review, 104(1), 53–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zimmerman, D. (1996). Could extended objects be made out of simple parts? An argument for ‘Atomless Gunk’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. LVI, no. 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, St. Louis University, Adorjan HallSaint LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations