Analysis 55 (3):191 - 196 (1995)
|Abstract||The strongest version of the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles states that of necessity, there are no distinct things with all their universals in common (where such putative haecceities as being Aristotle do not count as universals: I use 'universal' rather than 'property' here and in what follows for the simple reason that 'universal' is the term of art that most safely excludes haecceities from its instances). It is commonly supposed that Max Black's famous paper 'The identity of indiscernibles' (2) refutes this thesis. (Armstong's , chapter 9 is representative here.) Black argues (, p. 156) that it is perfectly possible that there be a world consisting solely of two indiscernible spheres at some distance to each other and that this world constitutes a counterexample to the principle above. The strongest version of the bundle theory of substance claims that of necessity, the substances that make up the world are bundles of universals.1 It is commonly supposed that a consequence of Black's defeat of the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is that this bundle theory of substance is mistaken. (Again, Armstong's  is representative.) I shall argue that Black's thought experiment does not defeat the bundle theory and that, as a result, the bundle theory can be used to salvage the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Hawthorne (1995). The Bundle Theory of Substance and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Analysis 55:191-196.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-P. Ereyra, The Bundle Theory is Compatible with Distinct but Indiscernible Particulars.
Jiri Benovsky (2008). The Bundle Theory and the Substratum Theory: Deadly Enemies or Twin Brothers? Philosophical Studies 141 (2):175 - 190.
Michael Della Rocca (2005). Two Spheres, Twenty Spheres, and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):480–492.
Gerald Keaney (2007). The Identity of Indiscernibles as a Logical Truth. Crossroads 1 (2):28-36 Free Online.
Jiri Benovsky (2006). A Modal Bundle Theory. Metaphysica 7 (2).
Rafael de Clercq (2012). On Some Putative Graph-Theoretic Counterexamples to the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Synthese 187 (2):661-672.
Jiri Benovsky (2009). The Self : A Humean Bundle and/or a Cartesian Substance ? European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 5 (1):7 - 19.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2004). Leibniz's Argument for the Identity of Indiscernibles in Primary Truths. In M. Carrara, A. M. Nunziante & G. Tomasi (eds.), Individuals, minds and bodies: themes from Leibniz. Franz Steiner Verlag.
Dean W. Zimmerman (1997). Distinct Indiscernibles and the Bundle Theory. Mind 106 (422):305-309.
Alan Schwerin (2012). Hume on the Self. Metaphysica 13 (1):65-85.
Peter Ainsworth (2011). Ontic Structural Realism and the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Erkenntnis 75 (1):67-84.
Charles B. Cross (2011). Brute Facts, the Necessity of Identity, and the Identity of Indiscernibles. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):1-10.
Sun Demirli (2010). Indiscernibility and Bundles in a Structure. Philosophical Studies 7 (1):1-18.
Robin Jeshion (2006). The Identity of Indiscernibles and the Co-Location Problem. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):163–176.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads23 ( #60,159 of 722,831 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,831 )
How can I increase my downloads?