How the Dead Live

Philosophia 39 (1):83-103 (2011)
Abstract
This paper maintains (following Yougrau 1987; 2000 and Hinchliff 1996) that the dead and other former existents count as examples of non-existent objects. If the dead number among the things there are, a further question arises: what is it to be dead—how should the state of being dead be characterised? It is argued that this state should be characterised negatively: the dead are not persons, philosophers etc. They lack any of the (intrinsic) qualities they had while they lived. The only facts involving the dead are facts about the relations they stand in—including the relations they bear to the qualities they formerly instantiated, and the intentional relations they stand in to us. Given an appropriate conception of qualities the dead can be said to be quality-less objects: bare particulars. The ‘Bare Particular Theory’ of individuals, it is argued, is coherent if and only if it concedes that the bare particulars it allows for don’t exist. The account of the dead and other former existents as bare particulars does justice to the misfortune of death, and points the way to a general theory of nonexistent objects
Keywords Metaphysics  Death  Presentism  Non-existence  Bare particulars
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11406-010-9258-5
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,472
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Sameness and Substance Renewed.David Wiggins - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.
Truth and Ontology.Trenton Merricks - 2007 - Oxford University Press.
Well-Being and Death.Ben Bradley - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
A Future for Presentism.Craig Bourne - 2006 - Oxford University Press.

View all 34 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Yes: Bare Particulars!Niall Connolly - 2015 - Philosophical Studies 172 (5):1355-1370.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
The Dead Donor Rule: Not Dead Yet.Laura A. Siminoff - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):30.
Reconsidering the Dead Donor Rule: Is It Important That Organ Donors Be Dead?Norman Fost - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (3):249-260.
Respect for the Dead and Dying.Anthony Preus - 1984 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):409-416.
Research on Dead Infants.R. S. Downie - 2003 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (2):161-175.
Ex Post Facto: Peirce and the Living Signs of the Dead.Kieran Cashell - 2007 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43 (2):345-372.
Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule.Mike Collins - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (2):1-26.
What We Owe the Dead.J. Jeremy Wisnewski - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):54-70.
Added to PP index
2010-06-19

Total downloads
106 ( #50,191 of 2,210,885 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #34,701 of 2,210,885 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature