Advertisement

Relations

  • Bo R. Meinertsen
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 136)

Abstract

No investigation of relations should start without the following ontological distinction between what I consider the three basic kinds of (material) relation (Meinertsen 2011). The issue of how these kinds are related to one another is rather complicated, but here I need give only a sketch of it in order to show that only one of the kinds of relation is TM-irreducible, i.e. constituent of states of affairs.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Universals and scientific realism (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, J. (1988). Events and their names. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Betti, A. (2015). Against facts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butchvarov, P. (1979). Being qua being: A theory of identity, existence, and predication. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, K. (1990). Abstract particulars. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Cross, C. B. (2002). Armstrong and the problem of converse relations. Erkenntnis, 56, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine, K. (1982). First-order modal theories III—facts. Synthese, 53, 43–122.Google Scholar
  9. Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. Philosophical Review, 199, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garrett, B. J. (1983). Identical truth-conditions. Analysis, 43, 117–118.Google Scholar
  11. Grossmann, R. (1983). The categorial structure of the world. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grossmann, R. (1992). The existence of the world: An introduction to ontology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Haldane, J. J. (1983). A benign regress. Analysis, 43, 116–117.Google Scholar
  14. Johansson, I. (1989). Ontological investigations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Johansson, I. (2014). All relations are internal—The new version. In A. Reboul (Ed.), Mind, values, and metaphysics: Philosophical essays in honor of Kevin Mulligan (Vol. 1, pp. 225–240). Dordrect: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Jørgensen, J. (1953). Reflections on reflexivity. Mind, 62, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katsoff, L. O. (1955). Some reflections on Jørgensen’s reflections on reflexivity. Mind, 64, 96–98.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1983a). Events. In his Philosophical Papers: Volume 2, (pp. 241–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lombard, L. B. (1986). Events: A metaphysical study. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  20. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The possibility of metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. MacBride, F. (2014). How involved do you want to be in a non-symmetrical relationship. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacBride, F. (2016). Relations. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 edn.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations.
  23. Mertz, D. W. (1996). Moderate realism and its logic. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Meinertsen, B. (2011). Distinguishing internal, external and grounded relations. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 83, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mulligan, K. (2009). Internal relations. In J. Kim, E. Sosa, & G. S. Rosenkrantz (Eds.), A Companion to Metaphysics (2nd edn.) (pp. 337–338). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Orilia, F. (2014). Positions, ordering relations and o-roles. Dialectica, 68, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. (Reprinted 2nd edition in 1996). NewYork: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  28. Sober, E. (1982) Why logically equivalent predicates may pick out different properties. American Philosophical Quarterly, 19, 183–188.Google Scholar
  29. Tegtmeier, E. (2004). The ontological problem of order. In H. Hochberg & K. Mulligan (Eds.), Relations and predicates (pp. 149–160). Frankfurt a.M: Ontos-Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Williamson, T. (1985). Converse relations. The Philosophical Review, 94, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bo R. Meinertsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations