Analysis 55 (3):191 - 196 (1955)
The strongest version of the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles states that of necessity, there are no distinct things with all their universals in common (where such putative haecceities as being Aristotle do not count as universals: I use 'universal' rather than 'property' here and in what follows for the simple reason that 'universal' is the term of art that most safely excludes haecceities from its instances). It is commonly supposed that Max Black's famous paper 'The identity of indiscernibles' (2) refutes this thesis. (Armstong's , chapter 9 is representative here.) Black argues (, p. 156) that it is perfectly possible that there be a world consisting solely of two indiscernible spheres at some distance to each other and that this world constitutes a counterexample to the principle above. The strongest version of the bundle theory of substance claims that of necessity, the substances that make up the world are bundles of universals.1 It is commonly supposed that a consequence of Black's defeat of the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles is that this bundle theory of substance is mistaken. (Again, Armstong's  is representative.) I shall argue that Black's thought experiment does not defeat the bundle theory and that, as a result, the bundle theory can be used to salvage the principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Individuals: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics.Shamik Dasgupta - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (1):35-67.
The Relationist and Substantivalist Theories of Time: Foes or Friends?Jiri Benovsky - 2011 - European Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):491-506.
Why Property Dualists Must Reject Substance Physicalism.Susan Schneider - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 157 (1):61-76.
Similar books and articles
The Bundle Theory of Substance and the Identity of Indiscernibles.John Hawthorne - 1995 - Analysis 55:191-196.
The Bundle Theory is Compatible with Distinct but Indiscernible Particulars.Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra - 2004 - Analysis 64 (1):72-81.
Two Spheres, Twenty Spheres, and the Identity of Indiscernibles.Michael Della Rocca - 2005 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):480–492.
The Identity of Indiscernibles as a Logical Truth.Gerald Keaney - 2007 - Crossroads 1 (2):28-36 Free Online.
On Some Putative Graph-Theoretic Counterexamples to the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.Rafael De Clercq - 2012 - Synthese 187 (2):661-672.
The Self : A Humean Bundle and/or a Cartesian Substance ?Jiri Benovsky - 2009 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 5 (1):7 - 19.
Leibniz's Argument for the Identity of Indiscernibles in Primary Truths.Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra - 2004 - In M. Carrara, A. M. Nunziante & G. Tomasi (eds.), Individuals, minds and bodies: themes from Leibniz. Franz Steiner Verlag.
Ontic Structural Realism and the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles.Peter Ainsworth - 2011 - Erkenntnis 75 (1):67-84.
Brute Facts, the Necessity of Identity, and the Identity of Indiscernibles.Charles B. Cross - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):1-10.
The Identity of Indiscernibles and the Co-Location Problem.Robin Jeshion - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):163–176.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads170 ( #27,112 of 2,171,999 )
Recent downloads (6 months)20 ( #16,211 of 2,171,999 )
How can I increase my downloads?