David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 39 (1):83-103 (2011)
This paper maintains (following Yougrau 1987; 2000 and Hinchliff 1996) that the dead and other former existents count as examples of non-existent objects. If the dead number among the things there are, a further question arises: what is it to be dead—how should the state of being dead be characterised? It is argued that this state should be characterised negatively: the dead are not persons, philosophers etc. They lack any of the (intrinsic) qualities they had while they lived. The only facts involving the dead are facts about the relations they stand in—including the relations they bear to the qualities they formerly instantiated, and the intentional relations they stand in to us. Given an appropriate conception of qualities the dead can be said to be quality-less objects: bare particulars. The ‘Bare Particular Theory’ of individuals, it is argued, is coherent if and only if it concedes that the bare particulars it allows for don’t exist. The account of the dead and other former existents as bare particulars does justice to the misfortune of death, and points the way to a general theory of nonexistent objects
|Keywords||Metaphysics Death Presentism Non-existence Bare particulars|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Trenton Merricks (2007). Truth and Ontology. Oxford University Press.
David Wiggins (2001). Sameness and Substance Renewed. Cambridge University Press.
Ben Bradley (2009). Well-Being and Death. Oxford University Press.
Tim Crane (2001). Elements of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press.
Craig Bourne (2006). A Future for Presentism. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Niall Connolly (2015). Yes: Bare Particulars! Philosophical Studies 172 (5):1355-1370.
Similar books and articles
Laura A. Siminoff (2003). The Dead Donor Rule: Not Dead Yet. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):30.
Norman Fost (2004). Reconsidering the Dead Donor Rule: Is It Important That Organ Donors Be Dead? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):249-260.
Anthony Preus (1984). Respect for the Dead and Dying. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):409-416.
Floris Tomasini (2009). Is Post-Mortem Harm Possible? Understanding Death Harm and Grief. Bioethics 23 (8):441-449.
R. S. Downie (2003). Research on Dead Infants. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (2):161-175.
Kieran Cashell (2007). Ex Post Facto: Peirce and the Living Signs of the Dead. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (2):345-372.
Mike Collins (2010). Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
Cody Gilmore (2007). Defining 'Dead' in Terms of 'Lives' and 'Dies'. Philosophia 35 (2):219-231.
J. Jeremy Wisnewski (2009). What We Owe the Dead. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):54-70.
Added to index2010-06-19
Total downloads82 ( #50,938 of 1,799,482 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #168,042 of 1,799,482 )
How can I increase my downloads?