|Abstract||Possible-worlds talk obscures, rather than clariﬁes, the debate about haecceitism. In this paper I distinguish haecceitism and anti-haecceitism from other doctrines that sometimes go under those names. Then I defend the claim that there are no non-tendentious deﬁnitions of ‘haecceitism’ and ‘anti-haecceitism’ using possible-worlds talk. That is, any deﬁnition of ‘haecceitism’ using possible-worlds talk depends, for its correctness, on a substantive theory of the nature of possible worlds. This explains why using possible-worlds talk when discussing haecceitism causes confusion: if the parties to the discussion presuppose different theories of the nature of possible worlds, then they will mean diﬀerent things by ‘haecceitism’.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Delia Graff Fara (2009). Dear Haecceitism. Erkenntnis 70 (3):285–297.
Delia Graff Fara (2009). Dear Haecceitism. Erkenntnis 70 (3):285 - 297.
Bradford Skow (2011). More on Haecceitism and Possible Worlds. Analytic Philosophy 52 (4):267-269.
J. A. Cover & John O'Leary-Hawthorne (1996). Haecceitism and Anti-Haecceitism in Leibniz's Philosophy. Noûs 30:1-30.
John O'Leary-Hawthorne & J. A. Cover (1996). Haecceitism and Anti-Haecceitism in Leibniz's Philosophy. Noûs 30 (1):1-30.
Anna Maidens, Particles and the Perversely Philosophical Schoolchild: Rigid Designation, Haecceitism and Statistics.
Bradford Skow (2008). Haecceitism, Anti-Haecceitism and Possible Worlds. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (230):98-107.
Alessandro Torza (2011). A Characterization of Haecceitism. Analytic Philosophy 52 (4):262-266.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads55 ( #18,742 of 556,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #16,099 of 556,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?