An argument against Armstrong's analysis of the resemblance of universals
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75 (1):109 – 111 (1997)
| Abstract | This Article does not have an abstract | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesNathan Stemmer (2007). On Universals: An Extensionalist Alternative to Quine's Resemblance Theory. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38 (1):75 - 90.
Theodore Sider (1995). Sparseness, Immanence, and Naturalness. Noûs 29 (3):360-377.
Javier Kalhat (2008). Structural Universals and the Principle of Uniqueness of Composition. Grazer Philosophische Studien 76 (1):57-77.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2004). Paradigms and Russell's Resemblance Regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (4):644 – 651.
D. M. Armstrong (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Westview Press.
M. Eddon (2007). Armstrong on Quantities and Resemblance. Philosophical Studies 136 (3):385 - 404.
D. M. Armstrong (2003). Review of Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra's Resemblance Nominalism: A Solution to the Problem of Universals. [REVIEW] Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):285 – 286.
Alexander Bird (2003). Resemblance Nominalism and Counterparts. Analysis 63 (3):221–228.
Lowell Friesen (2006). Natural Classes of Universals: Why Armstrong's Analysis Fails. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):285 – 296.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads16 ( #74,649 of 549,069 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,186 of 549,069 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
