Infinite Regress - Virtue or Vice?
Graduate studies at Western
Hommage à Wlodek (2007)
|Abstract||In this paper I argue that the infinite regress of resemblance is vicious in the guise it is given by Russell but that it is virtuous if generated in a (contemporary) trope theoretical framework. To explain why this is so I investigate the infinite regress argument. I find that there is but one interesting and substantial way in which the distinction between vicious and virtuous regresses can be understood: The Dependence Understanding. I argue, furthermore, that to be able to decide whether an infinite regress exhibits a dependence pattern of a vicious or a virtuous kind, facts about the theoretical context in which it is generated become essential. It is precisely because of differences in context that he Russellian resemblance regress is vicious whereas its trope theoretical counterpart is not.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ricki Leigh Bliss (2013). Viciousness and the Structure of Reality. Philosophical Studies 166 (2):399-418.
S. Weber (2011). Does Schmidt's Process-Orientated Philosophy Contain a Vicious Infinite Regress Argument? Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):34-35.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2004). Paradigms and Russell's Resemblance Regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (4):644 – 651.
Yuri Cath (2013). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3):358-388.
Jan Willem Wieland (2013). Infinite Regress Arguments. Acta Analytica 28 (1):95-109.
S. Weber (2013). Non-Dualism, Infinite Regress Arguments and the “Weak Linguistic Principle”. Constructivist Foundations 8 (2):148-157.
Paul Kabay (2005). An Infinite Temporal Regress is Compatible with the Doctrine of Creatio Originans. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (2):123 - 138.
Jan Willem Wieland (2011). The Sceptic's Tools: Circularity and Infinite Regress. Philosophical Papers 40 (3):359-369.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). Regress Argument Reconstruction. Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (1999). Where the Regress Argument Still Goes Wrong: Reply to Knowles. Analysis 59 (4):321-327.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). And So On. Two Theories of Regress Arguments in Philosophy. Ghent University.
Andrew D. Cling (2004). The Trouble with Infinitism. Synthese 138 (1):101 - 123.
Aidan Feeney (2000). Simple Heuristics: From One Infinite Regress to Another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):749-750.
Added to index2012-02-13
Total downloads13 ( #95,578 of 735,028 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 735,028 )
How can I increase my downloads?