Abstract
Vallicella’s influential work makes a case that, when formulated broadly, as a problem about unity, Bradley’s challenge to Armstrongian states of affairs is practically insurmountable. He argues that traditional relational and non-relational responses to Bradley are inadequate, and many in the current metaphysical debate on this issue have come to agree. In this paper, I argue that such a conclusion is too hasty. Firstly, the problem of unity as applied to Armstrongian states of affairs is not clearly defined; in fact, it has taken a number of different forms each of which need to be carefully distinguished and further supported. Secondly, once we formulate the problem in more neutral terms, as a request for a characterization of the way that particulars, universals, and states of affairs stand to one another, it can be adequately addressed by an Armstrongian about states of affairs. I propose the desiderata for an adequate characterization and present a neo-Armstrongian defense of states of affairs that meets those desiderata. The latter relies on an important distinction between different notions of fundamentality and existential dependence.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks for careful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper go to Gregory Landini, Francesco Orilia, Bo Meinertsen, and David Gooblar.
References
Alexander, S. 1920. Space, Time, and Deity, Vol. I. London: MacMillan.Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Universals and Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1989. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder, CO: Westview.Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511583308Search in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 2004. Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487552Search in Google Scholar
Blanshard, B. 1983. “Bradley on Relations.” In Philosophy of FH Bradley, edited by A. Manser, and G. Stock. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. 1893. Appearance and Reality. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. 1910. “On Appearance, Error and Contradiction.” Mind 19 (74):153–85.10.1017/CBO9781139136525.010Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, F. H. 1926. Relations. In: Collected Essays, Vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, R. 2008. “Turtles All the Way Down: Regress, Priority, and Fundamentality.” Philosophical Quarterly 58 (230):1–14.10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.509.xSearch in Google Scholar
Correia, F. 2008. “Ontological Dependence.” Philosophy Compass 3/5:1013–32.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00170.xSearch in Google Scholar
Grossmann, R. 1992. The Existence of the World. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2010. Ontological Dependence. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Search in Google Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2010. “Trope Theory and the Bradley Regress.” Synthese 175:311–26.10.1007/s11229-009-9511-2Search in Google Scholar
Meinertsen, B. 2008. “A Relation as the Unifier of States of Affairs.” Dialectica 62 (1):1–19.10.1111/j.1746-8361.2007.01127.xSearch in Google Scholar
Orilia, F. 2004. States of Affairs and Bradley’s Regress: Armstrong Versus Fact Infinitism. See academia.edu.Search in Google Scholar
Orilia, F. 2006. “States of Affairs. Bradley Vs. Meinong.” In Meinongian Issues in Contemporary Italian Philosophy, edited by V.Raspa, Meinong Studies 2. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.10.1515/9783110321128.213Search in Google Scholar
Perovic, K. 2014. “The Import of the Original Bradley’s Regress(Es).” Axiomathes 24 (3):375–94.10.1007/s10516-014-9229-8Search in Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1910. “Some Explanations in Reply to Mr. Bradley.” Mind 19 (75):373–78.10.1093/mind/XIX.1.373Search in Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2012. “Grounding, Transitivity, and Contrastivity.” In Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, edited by F.Correia, and B.Schneider. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139149136.005Search in Google Scholar
Simons, P. 1994. “Particulars in Particular Clothing: Three Trope Theories of Substance.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (3):553–75.10.2307/2108581Search in Google Scholar
Vallicella, W. F. 2000. “Three Conceptions of States of Affairs.” Noûs 34 (2):237–59.10.1111/0029-4624.00209Search in Google Scholar
Vallicella, W. F. 2002. “Relations, Monism, and the Vindication of Bradley’s Regress.” Dialectica 56 (1):3–35.10.1111/j.1746-8361.2002.tb00227.xSearch in Google Scholar
Wieland, J. W., and A. Betti. 2008. “Relata-Specific Relations: A Response to Vallicella.” Dialectica 62 (4):509–24.10.1111/j.1746-8361.2008.01167.xSearch in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter
