Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:46:33.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Particulars, Substrata, and The Identity of Indiscernibles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Albert Casullo
Albert Casullo*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Nebraska—Lincoln
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the view that ordinary particulars are complexes of universals. Russell's attempt to develop such a theory is articulated and defended against some common misinterpretations and unfounded criticisms in Section I. The next two sections address an argument which is standardly cited as the primary problem confronting the theory: (1) it is committed to the necessary truth of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles; (2) the principle is not necessarily true. It is argued in Section II that a proponent of the theory need not accept (1) and an argument against (2) is presented in Section III. The final section attempts to show that Russell's theory ultimately fails because of inadequacies in its treatment of space and time. The paper closes with a suggestion for remedying this difficulty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 591 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

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

Armstrong, D. M. (1978), Nominalism and Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, G. (1967), Realism: A Critique of Brentano and Meinong. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Black, M. (1970), “The Identity of Indiscernibles”, Universals and Particulars, Loux, M. J. (ed.). Garden City: Anchor Books: 204–216.Google Scholar
Brody, B. (1980), Identity and Essence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400853342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butchvarov, P. (1970), The Concept of Knowledge. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. (1976), Metaphysics: An Introduction. Encino: Dickenson Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Casullo, A. (1979), “Reid and Mill on Hume's Maxim of Conceivability”, Analysis 39: 212–219.10.1093/analys/39.4.212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casullo, A. (1981), “Russell on the Reduction of Particulars”, Analysis 41: 199–205.10.1093/analys/41.4.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1956), Introduction to Mathematical Logic, vol. I. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1977), The Structure of Appearance, 3rd ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.10.1007/978-94-010-1184-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, S. (1977), “Lewis’ Ontological Slum”, Review of Metaphysics 30: 415–429.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. I. (1946), An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Loux, M. J. (1978), Substance and Attribute. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.10.1007/978-94-009-9874-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1973), A System of Logic. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mondadori, F. and Morton, A. (1976), “Modal Realism: The Poisoned Pawn”, Philosophical Review 85: 3–20.10.2307/2184252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaklander, N. L. (1977), “Particulars, Positional Qualities, and Individuation”, Philosophy of Science 44: 478–490.10.1086/288761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pap, A. (1958), Semantics and Necessary Truth. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1940), An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1948), Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1959), My Philosophical Development. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1971), “On the Relations of Universals and Particulars”, The Problem of Universals, Landesman, C. (ed.). New York: Basic Books: 21–35.Google Scholar
Stout, G. F. (1971), “The Nature of Universals and Propositions”, The Problem of Universals, Landesman, C. (ed.). New York: Basic Books: 153–166.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B. (1970), Principia Mathematica to 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar