Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details

Metaphysica

International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Together with Cumpa, Javier

Editorial Board Member: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
1874-6373
See all formats and pricing

Why Realists Need Tropes

Markku Keinänen
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Helsinki, PL 24 (Unioninkatu 40 A, 6. krs), 00014 Helsingin yliopisto, Helsinki, Finland
  • Email:
/ Jani Hakkarainen
  • School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Philosophy, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
  • Email:
/ Antti Keskinen
  • School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Philosophy, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-03-31 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0006

Abstract

We argue that if one wishes to be a realist, one should adopt a realist ontology involving tropes instead of a Russellian ontology of property universals and objects. Either Russellian realists should adopt relata-specific relational tropes of instantiation instead of facts, or, better, convert to Neo-Aristotelian realism with monadic tropes. Regarding Neo-Aristotelian realism, we have two novel points why it fares better than Russellian realism. (1) Instantiation of property universals by tropes, and characterisation or inherence between tropes and objects, are more transparent ontological notions than relational inherence, which is assumed in Russellian realism with the relational tropes of instantiation. (2) Neo-Aristotelian realism makes better sense about abstract universals, which are a more viable option than concrete universals.

Keywords: metaphysics; ontology; realism; universals; tropes

References

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Nominalism and Realism, Universals and Scientific Realism, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1989. Universals – An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.

  • Armstrong, D. M. 1997. The World States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Armstrong, D. M. 2004. Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bergmann, G. 1967. Realism – A Critique of Brentano and Meinong. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

  • Berman, S. 2008. “Universals: Ways or Things.” Metaphysica 9 (2):219–34.

  • Betti, A. 2014. “Against Facts”, Manuscript.

  • Bradley, F. H. 1897. Appearance and Reality (second edition, first edition 1893). London: George Allen & Unwin.

  • Correia, F., and P. Keller. 2004. “Introduction.” Dialectica 58 (3):275–8.

  • David, M. 2013. “The Correspondence Theory of Truth.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/truth-correspondence/.

  • Dodd, J. 1999. “Farewell to States of Affairs.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77 (2):146–60.

  • Ehring, D. 2002. “Spatial Relations between Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (1):17–23. [Crossref]

  • Ellis, B. 2001. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Gilmore, C. 2003. “In Defence of Spatially Related Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (3):420–8. [Crossref]

  • Hochberg, H. 1978. Thought, Fact, and Reference: The Origins and Ontology of Logical Atomism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Hochberg, H. 2009. “Facts and Things.” In States of Affairs, edited by M. E. Reicher, 83–110. Frankfurt: Ontos verlag.

  • Keskinen, A., Hakkarainen, J., and M. Keinänen. 2016. “Concrete Universals and Spatial Relations”, European Journal of Analytic Philosophy (forthcoming).

  • Lowe, E. J. 1998. The Possibility of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Web of Science]

  • Lowe, E. J. 2009. More Kinds of Being. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Lowe, E. J. 2013. “In Defence of Substantial Universals”, a manuscript of the paper presented at the Conference on The Problem of Universals in Contemporary Philosophy, Scuola Normale Superiore, July 2010, Pisa.

  • MacBride, F. 2011. “Relations and Truthmaking.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111 (1pt1):161–79.

  • Maurin, A.-S. 2002. If Tropes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Maurin, A.-S. 2010. “Trope Theory and the Bradley Regress.” Synthese 175 (3):311–26. [Web of Science]

  • Maurin, A.-S. 2012. “Bradley’s Regress.” Philosophy Compass 7 (11):794–807.

  • Moreland, J. P. 2001. Universals. London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

  • Noonan, H., and B. Curtis. 2014. “Identity.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/identity/.

  • Parsons, J. 2007. “Theories of Location.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, vol 3. edited by D. W. Zimmerman, 201–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Paul, L. A. 2002. “Logical Parts.” Nous 36 (4):578–96.

  • Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2004. “The Bundle Theory is Compatible with Distinct but Indiscernible Particulars.” Analysis 64 (1):72–81.

  • Simons, P. M. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Smith, B. 1997. “On Substance, Accidents and Universals.” Philosophical Papers 27:105–27.

  • Smith, B., and K. Mulligan. 1983. “Framework for Formal Ontology.” Topoi 2:73–85.

  • Tugby, M. 2013. “Platonic Dispositionalism.” Mind 122 (486):451–80. [Web of Science]

  • Vallicella, W. 2002. “Realism, Monism, and the Vindication of Bradley’s Regress.” Dialectica 56 (1):3–35.

  • Van Cleve, J. 1985. “Three Versions of the Bundle Theory.” Philosophical Studies 47 (1):95–107.

  • van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

  • Wieland, J.-W., and A. Betti. 2008. “Relata-Specific Relations: A Response to Vallicella.” Dialectica 62 (4):509–24. [Web of Science]

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-31

Published in Print: 2016-04-01


Citation Information: Metaphysica, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0006. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in