The particular–universal distinction: A reply to MacBride

Dialectica 58 (3):335–340 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this brief reply to Fraser MacBride's critical examination of the four‐category ontology and the place within it of the particular ‐ universal distinction, it is argued that the prospects for identifying the four basic ontological categories in terms of the characteristic patterns of ontological dependency between entities belonging to the different categories are rather more promising than MacBride suggests

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
49 (#318,154)

6 months
3 (#1,002,413)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Object.Bradley Rettler & Andrew M. Bailey - 2017 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1.
Object.Henry Laycock - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Some formal ontological relations.E. J. Lowe - 2004 - Dialectica 58 (3):297–316.

Add more references