David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Noûs 29 (3):360-377 (1995)
In the past fifteen years or so there has been a lot of attention paid to theories of “sparse” universals, particularly because of the work of D. M. Armstrong. These theories are of particular interest to those of us concerned with the distinction between natural and non-natural properties, since, as David Lewis has observed, it seems possible to analyze naturalness in terms of sparse universals. Moreover, Armstrong claims that we should conceive of universals as being “immanent” as opposed to “transcendent”, and if universals are immanent then, as we will see, there is pressure to admit they are sparse as well. But I will argue that neither of these alleged reasons to accept a sparse conception of universals succeeds: the outlook for a fully general analysis of naturalness in terms of universals is not good, and the apparent advantages of immanence over transcendence are illusory
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jonathan Schaffer (2003). Is There a Fundamental Level? Noûs 37 (3):498–517.
Theodore Sider (2006). Bare Particulars. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):387–397.
Douglas Edwards (2013). Naturalness, Representation and the Metaphysics of Truth. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (3):384-401.
Paul Audi (2013). How to Rule Out Disjunctive Properties. Noûs 47 (4):748-766.
J. Robert G. Williams (2007). The Possibility of Onion Worlds: Rebutting an Argument for Structural Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):193 – 203.
Similar books and articles
Helena Siipi (2004). Naturalness in Biological Conservation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):457-477.
D. M. Armstrong (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Westview Press.
David M. Armstrong (1978). Universals and Scientific Realism: A Theory of Universals Vol. II. Cambridge University Press.
Helena Siipi (2008). Dimensions of Naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 71-103.
Elizabeth Barnes (2005). Vagueness in Sparseness: A Study in Property Ontology. Analysis 65 (288):315–321.
Javier Kalhat (2008). Structural Universals and the Principle of Uniqueness of Composition. Grazer Philosophische Studien 76 (1):57-77.
Paweł Rojek (2008). Three Trope Theories. Axiomathes 18 (3):359-377.
Lowell Friesen (2006). Natural Classes of Universals: Why Armstrong's Analysis Fails. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):285 – 296.
Theodore Sider (1993). Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads107 ( #16,373 of 1,700,355 )
Recent downloads (6 months)27 ( #23,685 of 1,700,355 )
How can I increase my downloads?