David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Metaphysica 12 (1):1-18 (2011)
States of affairs involving a non-symmetric relation such as loving are said to have a relational order, something that distinguishes, for instance, Romeo’s loving Juliet from Juliet’s loving Romeo. Relational order can be properly understood by appealing to o-roles, i.e., ontological counterparts of what linguists call thematic roles, e.g., agent, patient, instrument, and the like. This move allows us to meet the appropriate desiderata for a theory of relational order. In contrast, the main theories that try to do without o-roles, proposed by philosophers such as Russell, Hochberg, and Fine, are in trouble with one or another of these desiderata. After discussing some alternatives, it is proposed that o-roles are best viewed as very generic properties characterizable as ways in which objects jointly exemplify a relation. This makes for exemplification relations understood as complex entities having o-roles as building blocks
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
D. M. Armstrong (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge University Press.
D. M. Armstrong (1986). In Defence of Structural Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1):85 – 88.
George Bealer (1982). Quality and Concept. Oxford University Press.
John Bigelow & Robert Pargetter (1989). A Theory of Structural Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67 (1):1 – 11.
Charles B. Cross (2002). Armstrong and the Problem of Converse Relations. Erkenntnis 56 (2):215 - 227.
Citations of this work BETA
Fraser MacBride (2013). How Involved Do You Want to Be in a Non-Symmetric Relationship? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (1):1-16.
Similar books and articles
Francesco Orilia (2000). Argument Deletion, Thematic Roles, and Leibniz's Logico-Grammatical Analysis of Relations. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (2):147-162.
Joop Leo (2013). Relational Complexes. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):357-390.
Guido Boella & Leendert van der Torre (2007). The Ontological Properties of Social Roles in Multi-Agent Systems: Definitional Dependence, Powers and Roles Playing Roles. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (3):201-221.
Yael Ravin (1990). Lexical Semantics Without Thematic Roles. Oxford University Press.
Jules Holroyd (2009). Relational Autonomy and Paternalistic Interventions. Res Publica 15 (4):321-336.
Brian Earl Johnson (2012). Ethical Roles in Epictetus. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 16 (2):287-316.
Marc Lange (2000). Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth J. Gergen (2011). From Moral Autonomy to Relational Responsibility. Zygon 46 (1):204-223.
Thomas Sturm & Mitchell G. Ash (2005). The Roles of Instruments in Psychological Research. History of Psychology 8:3-34.
Thomas Maak & Nicola M. Pless (2006). Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – a Relational Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1):99 - 115.
Added to index2010-12-09
Total downloads45 ( #58,714 of 1,699,638 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #77,273 of 1,699,638 )
How can I increase my downloads?