Confessions of a (Cheap) Sophisticated Substantivalist

  • Carolyn BrighouseEmail author
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue : Hole Argument


I illustrate a challenge to a view that is a response to the Hole Argument. The view, sophisticated substantivalism, has been claimed to be the received view. While sophisticated substantivalism has many defenders, there is a fundamental tension in the view that has not received the attention it deserves. Anyone who defends or endorses sophisticated substantivalism, should acknowledge this challenge, and should either show why it is not serious or explain how to respond to it.


Hole argument Substantivalism Relationalism Determinism 



I’d like to thank Gordon Belot, Laura Ruetsche, Jim Weatherall, and Frank Arntzenius for helpful discussions on these issues, and thank audiences at UCLA and University of Bristol for helpful comments on talks from which this paper is derived.


  1. 1.
    Butterfield, J.: The hole truth. The British Journal for Philosophy of Science 40(1), 1–28 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brighouse, C.: Spacetime and holes. In: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association (Vol. 1, pp. 117–125). Philosophy of Science Association (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maidens, A.: World enough and space–time: absolute versus relational theories of space and time (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pooley, O.: Points, particles and structural realism. In: Rickles, D., French, S., Saatsi, J. (eds.) The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity, pp. 83–120. Oxford University Press, New York (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pooley, O.: Relationist and substantivalist approaches to spacetime. In: Batterman, R. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics, pp. 522–586. Oxford University Press, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bigaj, T.: Essentialism and modern physics. Metaphysics in Contemporary Physics 104, 145–178 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoefer, C., Cartright, N.: Substantivalism and the hole argument. In: Earman, J., Janis, A., Massey, G.J., Resche, N. (eds.) Philosophical Problems of the Internal and External Worlds, pp. 23–43. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dasgupta, S.: The bare necessities. Philosophical Perspectives 25(1), 115–160 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belot, G.: New work for counterpart theorists. British Journal for Philosophy of Science 46(2), 185–195 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Earman, J.: A primer on determinism, vol. 37. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Earman, J., Norton, J.: What price spacetime substantivalism? The hole story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38(4), 515–525 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fara, D.G.: Dear haecceitism. Erkenntnis 70(3), 285–297 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Field, H.: Realism, mathematics & modality. Oxford University Press, New York (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson, M.: There’s a hole and a bucket, dear leibniz. Midwest Studies in Philosophy XVIII, 202–240 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Black, M.: The identity of indiscernibles. Mind 61, 153–164 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, D.: On the plurality of worlds. London 5, 221–236 (1986)ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skow, B.: Haecceitism, anti-haecceitism and possible worlds. The Philosophical Quarterly 58(230), 98–107 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brighouse, C.: Determinism and modality. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48(4), 465–481 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brighouse, C.: Understanding Indeterminism. Philosophy and Foundations of Physics 4, 153–173 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Melia, J.: Holes, haecceitism and two conceptions of determinism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50(4), 639–664 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norton, J. D: The hole argument. In: Zalta, E. N. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2011 Edition.
  22. 22.
    Friedman, M.: Foundations of Space–Time theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sklar, L.: Space, Time, and Spacetime, vol. 164. University of California Press, California (1977)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skyrms, B.: Tractarian nominalism. Philosophical Studies 40(2), 199–206 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Armstrong, D.M.: Universals. An Opinionated Introduction. West-view, London, Boulder (Colorado) (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Occidental CollegeLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations