Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Unity of Linguistic Meaning.John Collins - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
    John Collins presents a new analysis of the problem of the unity of the proposition-how propositions can be both single things and complexes at the same time. He surveys previous investigations of the problem and offers his own novel and uniquely satisfying solution, which is defended from both philosophical and linguistic perspectives.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • A Neo-Armstrongian Defense of States of Affairs: A Reply to Vallicella.Katarina Perovic - 2016 - Metaphysica 17 (2):143-161.
    Vallicella’s influential work makes a case that, when formulated broadly, as a problem about unity, Bradley’s challenge to Armstrongian states of affairs is practically insurmountable. He argues that traditional relational and non-relational responses to Bradley are inadequate, and many in the current metaphysical debate on this issue have come to agree. In this paper, I argue that such a conclusion is too hasty. Firstly, the problem of unity as applied to Armstrongian states of affairs is not clearly defined; in fact, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Estados de cosas y relaciones de fundación.José Tomás Alvarado - 2014 - Tópicos 28:01-31.
    un estado de cosas es una estructura no-mereológica compuesta por universales, objetos y tiempos. En principio, un estado de cosas no está fundado en sus componentes, pues tales componentes podrían existir, pero no el estado de cosas que componen. La introducción de otras relaciones de 'instanciación' no mejoran la situación, si tales relaciones son universales. Un estado de cosas, sin embargo, sí está fundado en un universal, uno o varios objetos, un tiempo y un tropo que, esencialmente, es la instanciación (...)
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Relata‐Specific Relations: A Response to Vallicella.Arianna Betti Jan Willem Wieland - 2008 - Dialectica 62 (4):509-524.
    According to Vallicella's‘Relations, Monism, and the Vindication of Bradley's Regress’ , if relations are to relate their relata, some special operator must do the relating. No other options will do. In this paper we reject Vallicella's conclusion by considering an important option that becomes visible only if we hold onto a precise distinction between the following three feature‐pairs of relations: internality/externality, universality/particularity, relata‐specificity/relata‐unspecificity. The conclusion we reach is that if external relations are to relate their relata, they must be relata‐specific (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • The Import of the Original Bradley’s Regress.Katarina Perovic - 2014 - Axiomathes 24 (3):375-394.
    Much of the recent metaphysical literature on the problem of the relational unity of complexes leaves the impression that Bradley (or some Bradleyan argument) has uncovered a serious problem to be addressed. The problem is thought to be particularly challenging for trope theorists and realists about universals. In truth, there has been little clarity about the nature and import of the original Bradley’s regress arguments. In this paper, I offer a careful analysis and reconstruction of the arguments in Bradley’s Appearance (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Bradley's Regress and Ungrounded Dependence Chains: A Reply to Cameron.Francesco Orilia - 2009 - Dialectica 63 (3):333-341.
    A version of Bradley's regress can be endorsed in an effort to address the problem of the unity of states of affairs or facts, thereby arriving at a doctrine that I have called fact infinitism . A consequence of it is the denial of the thesis, WF, that all chains of ontological dependence are well-founded or grounded. Cameron has recently rejected fact infinitism by arguing that WF, albeit not necessarily true, is however contingently true. Here fact infinitism is supported by (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Why Should the Truthmaker Principle Be Restricted?Takeshi Akiba - 2011 - Kagaku Tetsugaku 44 (2):115-134.
    According to the “truthmaker maximalism”, every true contingent proposition is made true by something in the world, called its truthmaker. Although at first sight the maximalism seems to be a natural position, it has serious difficulties, especially concerning negative truths. In view of this, many truthmaker theorists adopt some non-maximalist position. It is not clear, however, whether these non-maximalists are justified, since existing reasons to justify the non-maximalism are not good enough. In this paper, then, I shall propose a new (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Bradley's Regress and Ungrounded Dependence Chains: A Reply to Cameron.Francesco Orilia - 2009 - Dialectica 63 (3):333-341.
    A version of Bradley's regress can be endorsed in an effort to address the problem of the unity of states of affairs or facts, thereby arriving at a doctrine that I have called fact infinitism. A consequence of it is the denial of the thesis, WF, that all chains of ontological dependence are well‐founded or grounded. Cameron has recently rejected fact infinitism by arguing that WF, albeit not necessarily true, is however contingently true. Here fact infinitism is supported by showing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Relata-Specific Relations: A Response to Vallicella.Jan Willem Wieland & Arianna Betti - 2008 - Dialectica 62 (4):509-524.
    According to Vallicella's 'Relations, Monism, and the Vindication of Bradley's Regress' (2002), if relations are to relate their relata, some special operator must do the relating. No other options will do. In this paper we reject Vallicella's conclusion by considering an important option that becomes visible only if we hold onto a precise distinction between the following three feature-pairs of relations: internality/externality, universality/particularity, relata-specificity/relata-unspecificity. The conclusion we reach is that if external relations are to relate their relata, they must be (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Explanation in Metaphysics.Daniel M. Johnson - unknown
    One of the primary tasks of the philosopher is to explain what it is for something to be the case – what it is for one event to cause another, what it is for an action to be obligatory, what it is for an object to bear a property, what it is for a proposition to be true necessarily, what it is for a person to know something. This activity of explaining what something is or what it is for something (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark