David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
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 (1993). A World of States of Affairs. Philosophical Perspectives 7 (3):429-440.
Terence Parsons (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. The MIT Press.
Bertrand Russell (1903). Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.
George Bealer (1982). Quality and Concept. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Michele Paolini Paoletti (2016). Non-Symmetrical Relations, O-Roles, and Modes. Acta Analytica:1-23.
Fraser MacBride (2013). How Involved Do You Want to Be in a Non-Symmetric Relationship? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (1):1-16.
Francesco Orilia (2014). Positions, Ordering Relations and O‐Roles. Dialectica 68 (2):283-303.
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 downloads52 ( #82,055 of 1,907,694 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #340,539 of 1,907,694 )
How can I increase my downloads?