Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T22:33:23.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

Edited by
Gabriele Galluzzo  and
Michael J. Loux
Gabriele Galluzzo
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Michael J. Loux
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy , pp. 215 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackrill, J. L. 1963. Aristotle. Categories and De Intepretatione. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ademollo, F. 2013. ‘Plato's Conception of the Forms: Some Remarks,’ in Chiaradonna and Galluzzo (eds.), 41–85.Google Scholar
Albritton, R. 1957. ‘Substance and Form in Aristotle,’ Journal of Philosophy 54: 699–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allaire, E. 1963. ‘Bare Particulars,’ Philosophical Studies 14: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almog, J. 1991. ‘The What and the How,’ Journal of Philosophy 88: 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1975. ‘Towards a Theory of Properties: Work in Progress on the Problem of Universals,’ Philosophy 50: 145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Universals and Scientific Realism, 2 vols. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1983. What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1989a. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1989b. A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1993a. ‘Reply to Forrest,’ in Bacon, J., Campbell, K., and Reinhardt, L. (eds.), Ontology, Causality and Mind: Essays in Honour of D. M. Armstrong. Cambridge University Press, 62–77.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1993b. ‘The Identification Problem and the Inference Problem,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53: 421–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1996. ‘Reply to Martin,’ in Crane, T. (ed.), Dispositions: A Debate. New York: Routledge, 88–104.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1997a. ‘Against “Ostrich” Nominalism: A Reply to Michael Devitt,’ in Mellor, D. H. and Oliver, A. (eds.), Properties. Oxford University Press, 101–11. Originally published in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61 (1980): 440–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Armstrong, D. M. 1997b. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 2004. Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 2005. ‘How Do Particulars Stand to Universals?,’ in Zimmerman, D. W. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 1, 139–54.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 2006. ‘Particulars Have Their Properties of Necessity,’ in Strawson, P. F. and Chakrabarti, A. (eds.), Universals, Concepts and Qualities: New Essays on the Meaning of Predicates. Aldershot: Ashgate, 239–47.Google Scholar
Bacon, J. 1995. Universals and Property Instances: The Alphabet of Being. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bacon, J. 2008. ‘Tropes,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2008/entries/tropes/.Google Scholar
Baker, R. 1967. ‘Particulars: Bare, Naked, and Nude,’ Noûs 1: 211–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beebee, H., Effingham, N., and Goff, P. 2011. Metaphysics: The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bergmann, G. 1967. Realism. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Betti, A. 2010. ‘Explanation in Metaphysics and Bolzano's Theory of Ground and Consequence,’ Logique et Analyse 211: 281–316.Google Scholar
Bird, A. 2005. ‘The Dispositionalist Conception of Laws,’ Foundations of Science 10: 353–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. 2007. Nature's Metaphysics: Laws and Properties. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. 2012. ‘Are any Kinds Ontologically Fundamental?’, in Tahko, (ed.), 94–104.Google Scholar
Black, M. 1952. ‘The Identity of Indiscernibles,’ Mind 61: 153–64.Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. 1897. Appearance and Reality (2nd edn.). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. 1927. Ethical Studies (2nd edn.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, B. A. 1972. ‘Towards an Aristotelian Theory of Scientific Explanation,’ Philosophy of Science 32: 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, B. A. 1973. ‘Why Settle for Anything Less Than Good Old-Fashioned Aristotelian Essentialism?,’ Noûs 7: 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, R. 2005. ‘Truthmaker Necessitarianism and Maximalism,’ Logique et Analyse 48: 43–56.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. 2008. ‘Turtles All the Way Down: Regress, Priority and Fundamentality,’ Philosophical Quarterly 58: 1–14.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. 1981. ‘The Metaphysics of Abstract Particulars,’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 477–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, K 1990. Abstract Particulars. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1989. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, H. 1975. ‘Identity and Sameness,’ Philosophia 5: 121–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, H. 1974. ‘Thinking and the Structure of the World,’ Philosophia 4: 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casullo, A. 1988. ‘A Fourth Version of the Bundle Theory,’ Philosophical Studies 54: 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservable. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, D. 2000. Aristotle on Meaning and Essence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. and Galluzzo, G. (eds.) 2013. Universals in Ancient Philosophy. Pisa: Edizioni della Scuola Normale.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. 1976. Person and Object. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Code, A. 1984. ‘The Aporematic Approach to Primary Being in Aristotle's Metaphysics Z,’ in Pelletier, and King-Farlow, (eds.), 1–20.Google Scholar
Code, A. 1986. ‘Aristotle: Essence and Accident,’ in Grandy, R. and Warner, R. (eds.), Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 411–39.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. M. 1978. ‘Essentialism in Aristotle,’ Review of Metaphysics 31: 387–405.Google Scholar
Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (trans.) 1984. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cover, J. A. and O'Leary-Hawthorne, J. 1999. Substance & Individuation in Leibniz. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, C. 1997. ‘Tropes,’ in Mellor, D. H. and Oliver, A. (eds.), Properties. Oxford University Press, 140–59.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1970. ‘Events as Particulars,’ Noûs 4: 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demos, R. 1948. ‘Note on Plato's Theory of Ideas,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8: 456–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. 1641. ‘Reply to Points that May Cause Difficulty to Theologians,’ in Cottingham et al. (1984), 172–78.Google Scholar
Devitt, M. 1980. ‘Ostrich Nominalism or “Mirage Realism”?,’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 61: 433–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, J. 1999. ‘Farewell to States of Affairs,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77: 146–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donagan, A. 1963. ‘Universals and Metaphysical Realism,’ The Monist 47: 211–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorr, C. 2005. ‘Non-Symmetric Relations,’ Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 1: 155–92.Google Scholar
Driscoll, J. 1981. ‘ΕΙΔΗ in Aristotle's Earlier and Later Theories of Substance,’ in O'Meara, D. (ed.), Studies in Aristotle. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 129–59.Google Scholar
Ehring, D. 1997. Causation and Persistence. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehring, D. 1999. ‘Tropeless in Seattle: The Cure for Insomnia,’ Analysis 51: 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehring, D. 2011. Tropes: Properties, Objects, and Mental Causation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erismann, C. 2007. ‘Immanent Realism: A Reconstruction of an Early Medieval Solution to the Problem of Universals,’ Documenti Studi Sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 18: 211–29.Google Scholar
Feynman, R., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. 1963–65. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 3 vols. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1989. ‘The Problem of De Re Modality,’ in Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H. (eds.), Themes from Kaplan. New York: Oxford University Press, 197–272.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1994a. ‘Essence and Modality,’ Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 1994b. ‘Senses of Essence,’ in Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Raffman, D., and Asher, Nicholas (eds.), Modality, Morality and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus. Cambridge University Press, 53–73.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1995. ‘Ontological Dependence,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95: 269–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 2000. ‘Neutral Relations,’ Philosophical Review 109: 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, P. 1993. ‘Just Like Quarks,’ in Bacon, J., Campbell, K., and Reinhardt, L. (eds.), Ontology, Causality and Mind: Essays in Honour of D. M. Armstrong. Cambridge University Press, 45–65.Google Scholar
Forrest, P. 2010. ‘The Identity of Indiscernibles,’ in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/.Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1987a. ‘Individuals in Aristotle,’ in Frede, M., Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 49–71.Google Scholar
Frede, M. 1987b. ‘Substance in Aristotle's Metaphysics,’ in Frede, M., Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 72–80.Google Scholar
Frede, M. and Patzig, G. 1988. Aristoteles, Metaphysik Ζ, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar, 2 vols. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Galluzzo, G. 2013. ‘Universals in Aristotle's Metaphysics,’ in Chiaradonna, and Galluzzo, (eds.), 209–53.Google Scholar
Galluzzo, G. and Mariani, M. (eds.) 2007. Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Zeta. The Contemporary Debate. Pisa: Edizioni della Scuola Normale.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. 2009. ‘Nominalist Constituent Ontologies: A Development and Critique’, PhD dissertation, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. 2010. ‘Tropes and Tropers,’ unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. 2014a. ‘Bare Particulars and Constituent Ontology,’ Acta Analytica 29: 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, R. 2014b. ‘Bundle Theory's Black Box: Gap Challenges for the Bundle Theory of Substance,’ Philosophia 42: 115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, R. 2014c. ‘Tropes and Dependency Profiles: Problems for the Nuclear Theory of Substance,’ American Philosophical Quarterly 51: 167–76.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. MS a. ‘Tropes as Character-Grounders.’Google Scholar
Garcia, R. MS b. ‘Two Ways to Particularize a Property.’Google Scholar
Gaskin, R. 2008. The Unity of the Proposition. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, R. 2010. ‘Précis of the Unity of the Proposition,’ Dialectica 64: 259–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1966. The Structure of Appearance (2nd edn.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Gratton, C. 2010. Infinite Regress Arguments. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Heil, J. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, J. 2005. ‘Real Tables,’ The Monist 88: 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, J. 2009. ‘Relations,’ in Le Poidevin, R. and Cameron, R. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. London: Routledge, 310–21.Google Scholar
Heil, J. 2010. ‘Powerful Qualities,’ in Marmodoro, A. (ed.), The Metaphysics of Powers: Their Grounding and their Manifestations. London: Routledge, 58–72.Google Scholar
Heil, J. 2012. The Universe as We Find It. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, J. 2015. ‘Cartesian Transubstantiation,’ in Kvanvig, J. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Oxford University Press, 138–57.Google Scholar
Heller, M. 1990. The Ontology of Physical Objects. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hochberg, H. 1999. Complexes and Consciousness. Stockholm: Thales.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. and Rosenkrantz, J. S. 2005. ‘Platonist Theories of Universals,’ in Loux, M. J. and Zimmerman, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, 46–73.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1739. A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. and Nidditch, P. H. (2nd edn.). Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
James, W. 1904. ‘A World of Pure Experience,’ Journal of Philosophy 1: 52–76.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1768. ‘On the First Ground of the Distinction of Regions in Space,’ Academy Edition, vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1783. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, trans. Beck, L. W.. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1950.Google Scholar
Keinänen, M. 2011. ‘Tropes: The Basic Constituents of Powerful Particulars?,’ Dialectica 65: 419–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. 2008. The Structure of Objects. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. 2012. ‘Essence, Necessity and Explanation,’ in Tahko (ed.), 187–206.Google Scholar
Küng, G. 1967. Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kung, J. 1977. ‘Aristotle on Essence and Explanation,’ Philosophical Studies 31: 361–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBossiere, M. 1994. ‘Substances and Substrata,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72: 360–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 1715. Leibniz–Clarke Correspondence, trans. M. Morris and G. H. R. Parkinson, in Parkinson, G. H. R. (ed.), Leibniz: Philosophical Writings. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1973.Google Scholar
Levinson, J. 1978. ‘Properties and Related Entities,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 39: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, J. 1980. ‘The Particularization of Attributes,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58: 102–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, J. 2006. ‘Why There Are No Tropes,’ Philosophy 81: 563–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. ‘New Work for a Theory of Universals,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986a. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986b. ‘Against Structural Universals,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986c. Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1991. Parts of Classes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, F. 1982. ‘Accidental Sameness in Aristotle,’ Philosophical Studies 42: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, F. 1984. ‘What is Aristotle's Theory of Essence?,’ in Pelletier and King-Farlow (eds.), 89–131.Google Scholar
Lewis, F. 1991. Substance and Predication in Aristotle. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Loux, M. 1978. Substance and Attribute. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. 1991. Primary Ousia. An Essay on Aristotle's Metaphysics Z and H. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Loux, M. 2002. Metaphysics (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Loux, M. 2004. ‘Aristotle on Matter, Form, and Ontological Strategy,’ Ancient Philosophy 25: 81–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. 2006a. ‘Aristotle's Constituent Ontology,’ in Zimmerman, D. W. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 2. Oxford University Press, 207–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. 2006b. Metaphyisics: A Contemporary Introduction. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. 2007a. ‘Substance, Coincidentals, and Aristotle's Constituent Ontology,’ in Shields, 371–99.Google Scholar
Loux, M. 2007b. ‘Perspectives on the Problem of Universals,’ Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 18: 601–21.Google Scholar
Loux, M. 2009. ‘Aristotle on Universals,’ in Anagnostopoulos, G. (ed.), A Companion to Aristotle. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 186–96.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 1987. ‘What is the Problem of Induction?,’ Philosophy 62: 325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 1989. Kinds of Being: A Study of Individuation, Identity, and the Logic of Sortal Terms. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 1995. ‘The Metaphysics of Abstract Objects,’ Journal of Philosophy 92: 509–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 1998. The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2002a. A Survey of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2002b. ‘Metaphysical Nihilism and the Subtraction Argument,’ Analysis 62: 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2005. ‘Individuation,’ in Loux, M. J. and Zimmerman, D. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, 75–95.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2009. More Kinds of Being: A Further Study of Individuation, Identity and the Logic of Sortal Terms. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2010. ‘Ontological Dependence,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/dependenceontological/.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. 1999. ‘Could Armstrong Have Been a Universal?,’ Mind 108: 471–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBride, F. 2005. ‘Lewis's Animadversions on the Truthmaker Principle,’ in Beebee, H. and Dodd, J (eds.), Truthmakers: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press, 117–40.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. 2007. ‘Neutral Relations Revisited,’ Dialectica 61: 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBride, F. 2011. ‘Relations & Truthmaking,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111: 161–79.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. 2013a. ‘How Involved Do You Want To Be in a Non-Symmetric Relationship?,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacBride, F. 2013b. ‘The Russell–Wittgentein Dispute: A New Perspective,’ in Textor, M. (ed.), Judgement and Truth in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 206–41.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. 2014. ‘Truthmakers,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/truthmakers/.Google Scholar
Macdonald, C. and Macdonald, G. 2006. ‘The Metaphysics of Mental Causation,’ Journal of Philosophy 103: 539–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, D. 2002. ‘Properties and Resemblance Classes,’ Noûs 36: 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariani, M. 2013. ‘Universals in Aristotle's Logical Works,’ in Chiaradonna and Galluzzo (eds.), 185–208.Google Scholar
Martin, C. 1980. ‘Substance Substantiated,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, C. 2008. The Mind in Nature. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. B. 1990. ‘Aristotelian Essentialism,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Suppl. Vol. 50: 251–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. B. and Cohen, S. M. 1968. ‘The One and the Many,’ Review of Metaphysics 21: 630–55.Google Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2002. If Tropes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2010. ‘Trope Theory and the Bradley Regress,’ Synthese 175: 311–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2011. ‘An Argument for the Existence of Tropes,’ Erkenntnis 74: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2012. ‘Bradley's Regress,’ Philosophy Compass 7: 794–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2013a. ‘Infinite Regress Arguments,’ in Svennerlind, C., Almäng, J., and Ingthorsson, R. (eds.), Johanssonian Investigations. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag, 421–38.Google Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2013b. ‘Exemplification as Explanation,’ Axiomathes 23: 401–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2014a. ‘Tropes,’ in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/tropes/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2014b. ‘Segelberg on Unity and Complexity,’ in Malmgren, H., Nordin, T., and Svennerlind, C. (eds.), Botany and Philosophy: Essays on Ivar Segelberg. Stockholm: Thales, 36–54.Google Scholar
Mellor, D. 1991. Matters of Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merricks, T. 2001. Objects and Persons. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, D. W. 1996. Moderate Realism and its Logic. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Minio-Paluello, L. 1949. Aristotle's Categoriae et Liber De Interpretatione. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Molnar, G. 2003. Powers: A Study in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1919. ‘External and Internal Relations,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 20: 40–62. Reprinted in G. E. Moore, Philosophical Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1922, 276–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1922. Philosophical Studies. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.; New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Moreland, J. P. and Pickavance, T. 2003. ‘Bare Particulars and Individuation: Reply to Mertz,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81: 1–13.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. S. 1977. ‘Two Unresolved Difficulties in the Line and the Cave,’ Phronesis 22: 212–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. 1729. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, trans. Motte, A, revised Cajori, F.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1934.Google Scholar
Oderberg, D. S. 2007. Real Essentialism. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary-Hawthorne, J. and Cover, J. A. 1998. ‘A World of Universals,’ Philosophical Studies 91: 205–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orilia, F. 2006. ‘States of Affairs: Bradley vs. Meinong,’ in Raspa, V. (ed.), Meinongian Issues in Contemporary Italian Philosophy, vol. 2. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag, 213–38.Google Scholar
Orilia, F. 2009. ‘Bradley's Regress and Ungrounded Dependence Chains: A Reply to Cameron,’ Dialectica 63: 333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, J. 1999. ‘There is No “Truthmaker” Argument Against Nominalism,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77: 325–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, J. 2009. ‘Are There Irreducibly Relational Facts?,’ in Lowe, E. J. and Rami, E (eds.), Truth and Truth-Making. Stocksfield: Acumen Press, 217–26.Google Scholar
Paul, L. A. 2002. ‘Logical Parts,’ Noûs 36: 578–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. 2004. ‘The Context of Essence,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82: 170–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. 2006a. ‘Coincidence as Overlap,’ Noûs 40: 623–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. 2006b. ‘In Defense of Essentialism,’ in Hawthorne, J. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 20: Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell, 333–72.Google Scholar
Paul, L. A. 2012a. ‘Building the World from its Fundamental Constituents,’ Philosophical Studies 158: 221–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. 2012b. ‘Metaphysics as Modeling: The Handmaiden's Tale,’ Philosophical Studies 160: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. forthcoming. ‘A One Category Ontology,’ in Keller, J. A. (ed.), Freedom, Metaphysics, and Method: Themes from van Inwagen. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pelletier, J. and King-Farlow, J. (eds.) 1984. New Essays on Aristotle. Guelph, Ontario: Canadian Association for Publishing in Philosophy.Google Scholar
Pickavance, T. 2014. ‘Bare Particulars and Exemplification,’ American Philosophical Quarterly 51: 95–108.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1954. ‘On What There Is,’ in Quine, W. V. O., From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1–19. Originally published in Review of Metaphysics 2 (1948): 21–36.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rea, M. (ed.) 2008. Critical Concepts in Philosophy: Metaphysics, Vol. 5. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robb, D. M. 1997. ‘The Properties of Mental Causation,’ Philosophical Quarterly 47: 178–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robb, D. M. 2005. ‘Qualitative Unity and the Bundle Theory,’ Monist 88: 466–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2004. ‘The Bundle Theory is Compatible with Distinct but Indiscernible Particulars,’ Analysis 64: 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1924. Aristotle's Metaphysics, 2 vols. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1936. Aristotle's Physics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1949. Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1958. Aristotle's Topica et Sophistici Elenchi. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge University Press. Reprinted London: Routledge, 2010.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1925. ‘Logical Atomism,’ in Muirhead, J. H. (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin, 359–83.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1940. An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Santayana, G. 1930. The Realm of Matter. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2001. ‘The Individuation of Tropes,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 247–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2010. ‘Monism: The Priority of the Whole,’ Philosophical Review 119: 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seargent, D. A. J. 1985. Plurality and Continuity. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segelberg, I. 1999. Three Essays in Phenomenology and Ontology, trans. Hochberg, H. and Ringström Hochberg, S.. Stockholm: Thales.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. I. 1957. ‘Substance and Form in Aristotle,’ Journal of Philosophy 54: 688–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, W. I. 1963a. Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. I. 1963b. ‘Abstract Entities,’ Review of Metaphysics 16: 627–71. Reprinted in Sellars, Philosophical Perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1967, 229–69.Google Scholar
Shields, C. (ed.) 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, S. 1980. ‘Causality and Properties,’ in van Inwagen, P. (ed.), Time and Cause. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 109–35.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, S. 1998. ‘Causal and Metaphysical Necessity,’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79: 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 2006. ‘Bare Particulars,’ Philosophical Perspectives 20: 387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P. 1994. ‘Particulars in Particular Clothing,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54: 553–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, G. F. 1921. ‘The Nature of Universals and Propositions,’ Proceedings of the British Academy 10 (1921–23): 157–72. Reprinted in Stout (1930), 384–403.Google Scholar
Stout, G. F. 1930. Studies in Philosophy and Psychology. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stout, G. F. 1936. ‘Universals Again,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 15: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. and Grice, P. 1956. ‘In Defense of a Dogma,’ Philosophical Review 65: 141–58.Google Scholar
Swoyer, C. 1982. ‘The Nature of Natural Laws,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60: 203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahko, T. E. (ed.) 2013. Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vallicella, W. F. 2000. ‘Three Conceptions of States of Affairs,’ Noûs 34: 237–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, J. 1985. ‘Three Versions of the Bundle Theory,’ Philosophical Studies 51: 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 1993. ‘Armstrong, Cartwright and Earman on Laws and Symmetry,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53: 431–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. 2002. The Empirical Stance. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1981. ‘The Doctrine of Arbitrary Undetached Parts,’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62: 123–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1986. ‘Two Concepts of Possible Worlds,’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 11: 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Objects. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2006. ‘A Theory of Properties,’ in Zimmerman, D. W. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 107–38.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2007a. ‘Impotence and Collateral Damage: One Charge in van Fraassen's Indictment of Analytical Metaphysics,’ Philosophical Topics 35: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2007b. ‘A Set of Accidents,’ Times Literary Supplement. December 21 and 28.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2009. ‘The New Anti-Metaphysicians,’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 83: 45–61.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2012. ‘What is an Ontological Category?’ in Novák, L., Novotný, D. D., Sousedík, P., and Svoboda, D. (eds.), Metaphysics: Aristotelian, Scholastic, Analytic. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag in cooperation with Studia Neoaristotelica, 11–24.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 2014. Existence: Essays in Ontology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedin, M. V. 1984. ‘Singular Statements and Essentialism in Aristotle,’ in Pelletier and King-Farlow (eds.), 67–88.Google Scholar
Wieland, J. W. and Weber, E. 2010. ‘Metaphysical Explanatory Asymmetries,’ Logique et Analyse 211: 345–65.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. 1980. Sameness and Substance, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. 2001. Sameness and Substance Renewed. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. 1953.‘The Elements of Being, 1,’ Review of Metaphysics 7: 3–18.Google Scholar
Williams, D. 1954. ‘Of Essence and Existence in Santayana,’ Journal of Philosophy 51: 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. 1959. ‘Universals and Existents,’ paper delivered to the Yale Philosophy Club, published posthumously in Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1986): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D. 1966. Principles of Empirical Realism. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 1985. ‘Converse Relations,’ Philosophical Review 94: 249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, trans. Ogden, C. K., introd. Russell, B.. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, N. 1970a. ‘Bergmann's Constituent Ontology,’ Noûs 4: 109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolterstorff, N. 1970b. On Universals. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, N. 1991. ‘Divine Simplicity,’ Philosophical Perspectives 5: 531–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Edited by Gabriele Galluzzo, University of Exeter, Michael J. Loux, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy
  • Online publication: 05 July 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181539.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Edited by Gabriele Galluzzo, University of Exeter, Michael J. Loux, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy
  • Online publication: 05 July 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181539.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Edited by Gabriele Galluzzo, University of Exeter, Michael J. Loux, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy
  • Online publication: 05 July 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181539.011
Available formats
×