Infinite regress arguments and the problem of universals

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 52 (3):191 – 201 (1974)
What is it for a particular to have a property? many proposed analyses of this situation may be called relational accounts. The particular has some relation, R, To some entity p. R may be the relation of falling under, Being a member of, Resembling or "participating." p may be a predicate, A concept, A class, A paradigm instance or a form. A number of arguments seek to prove that all these accounts are involved in various vicious infinite regresses. These arguments are classified, Their resemblances and differences noted, And their soundness assessed. (edited)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00048407412341211
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,674
External links
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
H. H. Price (1954). Thinking and Experience. Philosophical Review 63 (1):93-98.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Graham Nerlich (1976). Universals: Escaping Armstrong's Regresses. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 54 (1):58 – 64.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

159 ( #26,216 of 1,903,042 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #110,976 of 1,903,042 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.