Haecceities, individuation and the Trinity: a reply to Keith Yandell

Religious Studies 38 (2):201-213 (2002)

Richard Brian Davis
Tyndale University College
In this paper I reply to Keith Yandell's recent charge that Anselmian theists cannot also be Trinitarians. Yandell's case turns on the contention that it is impossible to individuate Trinitarian members, if they exist necessarily. Since the ranks of Anselmian Trinitarians includes the likes of Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams, and Thomas Flint, Yandell's claim is of considerable interest and import. I argue, by contrast, that Anselmians can appeal to what Plantinga calls an essence or haecceity – a property essentially unique to an object – to distinguish Trinitarian members. I go on to show that the main Yandellian objection to this individuative strategy is not successful.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0034412502006005
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,694
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reply to Nielsen.Keith Yandell - 1968 - Sophia 7 (3):18-19.
Theism and Evil: A Reply.Keith E. Yandell - 1972 - Sophia 11 (1):1-7.
God and Gratuitous Evil: A Reply to Yandell.Keith Chrzan - 1991 - Religious Studies 27 (1):99 - 103.
Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation.David Lewis - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (1):3-32.


Added to PP index

Total views
78 ( #104,360 of 2,264,508 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #294,837 of 2,264,508 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature