Are the Bundle Theory and the Substratum Theory Really Twin Brothers?

Axiomathes - Tập 19 - Trang 73-85 - 2008
Matteo Morganti1
1Institut d’Histoire et Philosophie des Sciences et des Techniques (Paris I Sorbonne/CNRS/ENS), Paris, France

Tóm tắt

In a recent paper, Jiri Benovsky argues that the bundle theory and the substratum theory, traditionally regarded as ‘deadly enemies’ in the metaphysics literature, are in fact ‘twin brothers’. That is, they turn out to be ‘equivalent for all theoretical purposes’ upon analysis. The only exception, according to Benovsky, is a particular version of the bundle theory whose distinguishing features render unappealing. In the present reply article, I critically analyse these undoubtedly relevant claims, and reject them.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Adams RM (1979) Primitive thisness and primitive identity. J Philos 76:5–25 Benovsky J (2008) The bundle theory and the substratum theory: deadly enemies or twin brothers? Philos Stud 141:175–190 Black M (1952) The identity of indiscernibles. Mind 61:152–164 Casullo A (1982) Particulars, substrata and the identity of the indiscernibles. Philos Sci 49:591–603 Catterson T (2008) Reducing reductionism: on a putative proof of extreme haecceitism. Philos Stud 140:149–159 Clatterbaugh KC (1965) General ontology and the principle of acquaintance. Philos Sci 32:272–276 Della Rocca M (2006) Two spheres, twenty spheres and the identity of the indiscernibles. Pac Philos Q 86:480–492 Denkel A (1997) On the compresence of tropes. Philos Phenomenol Res 57:599–606 Elshof GAT (2000) A defence of moderate haecceitism. Grazer Philosophische Studien 6:55–74 Gracia JJE (1988) Individuality: an essay on the foundations of metaphysics. SUNY Press, Albany, New York Hacking I (1975) The identity of the indiscernibles. J Philos 72:249–256 Hawthorne J (1995) The bundle theory of substance and the identity of the indiscernibles. Analysis 55:191–196 LaBossiere M (1994) Substances and substrata, in Australasian. J Philos 72:360–370 Loux MJ (1978) Substance and attribute. Dordrecht Reidel, Dordrecht Moreland JP (1998) Theories of individuation. A reconsideration of bare particulars. Pac Philos Q 79:251–263 Odegard D (1964) Indiscernibles. Philos Q 14:204–213 Quine WO (1976) Grades of discriminability. J Philos 73:113–116 Rodriguez-Pereyra G (2002) Resemblance nominalism. A solution to the problem of universals. Clarendon Press, Oxford Rodriguez-Pereyra G (2004) The bundle theory is compatible with distinct but indiscernible particulars. Analysis 64:72–81 Salmon N (1996) Trans-world identification and stipulation. Philos Stud 84:203–223 Saunders S (2003) Physics and Leibniz’s principles. In: Brading K, Castellani E (eds) Symmetries in physics philosophical reflections. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 289–308 Sider T (2006) Bare particulars. Philos Perspectives 20:387–397 Simons P (1994) Particulars in particular clothing: three trope theories of substance. Philos Phenomenol Res 54:553–575 Vallicella W (1997) Bundles and indiscernibility: a reply to O’Leary-Hawthorne. Analysis 57:91–94