Advertisement

Predication and Regress: In Virtue of What is a F?

  • Guido Imaguire
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 397)

Abstract

This chapter deals with one of the main arguments for Priority Nominalism: the regress argument against the possibility of finding an explanation for predication. Indeed, since the priority nominalist considers predication a fundamental ontological relation, regress arguments are one of his main weapons against all rivals. Accordingly, the main aim of this chapter will be to show that all strategies used for blocking a regress are faulty. These strategies are: the identity of level solution, the quantificational solution, the formal relation solution, the internal relation solution and the truthmaking and grounding solutions. The straightforward conclusion is: once you destroy the unity of a thick object (i.e. you separate the particular from its properties) then (as with Humpty Dumpty) you can never it back together again.

References

  1. Alvarado, J.T. 2013. The Relation of Instantiation. Filozofia Nauki XXI., 2 (82): 31–49.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D.M. 1974. Infinite Regress Arguments and The Problem of Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 52 (3): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 1978. Nominalism and Realism, Vol. I: A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1989. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westfield Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, F.H. 1897. Appearance and Reality. 2nd ed. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Ltd..Google Scholar
  6. Branquinho, J., and G. Imaguire. 2013. Regressões ao Infinito em Metafísica. In Compêndio em Linha de Problemas de Filosofia Analítica, ed. J. Branquinho and R. Santos. Lisbon: Universidade de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  7. Bricenõ, S. 2016. El Regresso de Bradley y el Problema de la Unidad-Completa: ¿Tropos al Rescate? Crítica 48 (143): 47–75.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, R. 2008. Turtles All the Way Down: Regress, Priority and Fundamentality in Metaphysics. The Philosophical Quarterly 58: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, K. 1990. Abstract Particulars. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Daly, C. 1997. Tropes. In Properties, ed. D.H. Mellor and A. Oliver, 140–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Garcia, R. 2014. Tropes and Dependency Profiles: Problems for the Nuclear Theory of Substance. American Philosophical Quarterly 51 (2): 167–176.Google Scholar
  12. Gaskin, R. 2008. The Unity of the Proposition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heil, J. 2009. Relations. In Routledge Companion to Metaphysics, ed. R. Le Poidevin et al., 310–321. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Imaguire, G. 2012. On the Ontology of Relations. Disputatio 4 (34): 690–711.Google Scholar
  15. Keinänen, M. 2014. A Trope Nominalist Theory of Natural Kinds. In Nominalism about Properties: New Essays, ed. G. Guigon and G. Rodriguez-Pereyra. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Küng, G. 1967. Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe, E.J. 2004. Some Formal Ontological Relations. Dialectica 58 (3): 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MacBride, F. 2005. The Particular-Universal Distinction: A Dogma of Metaphysics? Mind 114: 565–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2010. Relations and Truthmaking. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society S.V. 84: 213–241.Google Scholar
  20. Maurin, A.-S. 2010. Trope Theory and the Bradley Regress. Synthese 175: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meinertsen, B. 2008. A Relation as the Unifier of States of Affairs. Dialectica 62 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meixner, U. 2011. Einführung in die Ontologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  23. Mellor, D.H. 2012. Nature’s Joints: a Realistic Defence of Natural Properties. Ratio XXV: 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mertz, D. 1996. Moderate Realism and Its Logic. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nolan, D. 2001. What is Wrong With Infinite Regress? Metaphilosophy 32: 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parkinson, G.H.R. 1965. Logic and Reality in Leibniz’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Price, H.H. 1953. Thinking and Experience. London: Hutchinson’s University Library.Google Scholar
  28. Rescher, N. 1967. The Philosophy of Leibniz. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2001. Resemblance Nominalism and Russell’s Regress. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2002. Resemblance Nominalism. A Solution to the Problem of Universals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1910. Some Explanations in Reply to Mr. Bradley. Mind 19: 373–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Tarski, A. 1936. On the Concept of Logical Consequence. In Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, ed. A. Tarski (trans. J. Woodger). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tugby, M. 2013. Causal Nominalism and the One Over Many Problem. Analysis 73: 455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vallicella, W.F. 2000. Three Conceptions of States of Affairs. Nous 34 (2): 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2002. Relations, Monism, and the Vindication of Bradley’s Regress. Dialectica 56 (1): 3–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Cleve, J. 1994. Predication Without Universals? A Fling with Ostrich Nominalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (3): 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittle, A. 2009. Causal Nominalism. In Dispositions and Causes, ed. T. Handfield, 242–285. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Zalta, E. 1983. Abstract Objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Imaguire
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations