States of affairs
Erkenntnis 48 (2-3):311-324 (1998)
| Abstract | States of affairs are considered as ontologically basic. Different from similar accounts, these states of affairs are introduced as simple occurrences or items of a certain kind. The ontological importance of these occurrences lies in their semantical function as exemplars for the introduction of the most basic linguistic devices. The ontological basis proposed is particularist. Universals are an aspect of our routine behaviour as we neglect the differences of particular properties of things. Abstract objects are produced in our routine, language-dependent operations if we leave aside the fact that we usually operate with some definite material. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesM. Reicher (ed.) (2009). States of Affairs. ontos verlag.
Robert F. Card (2004). Consequentialist Teleology and the Valuation of States of Affairs. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 7 (3):253-265.
John Bolender (2006). Nomic Universals and Particular Causal Relations: Which Are Basic and Which Are Derived? Philosophia 34 (4):405-410.
James D. Rissler (2006). Does Armstrong Need States of Affairs? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):193 – 209.
Holger Leerhoff (2008). Bradley's Regress, Russell's States of Affairs, and Some General Remarks on the Problem. Studia Philosophica Estonica 1:249-264.
Dale Jacquette (2010). Truth Breakers. Topoi 29 (2):153-163.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads12 ( #93,438 of 549,224 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,224 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
