« The Fix We Are In: How Should We Respond to the 'Woke' Revolutionaries? | Main | The Upside of Moral Failure »

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thanks, B.V. You answered both of my questions. If bare particulars don't have properties necessarily, then I wonder how they can be characterized at all. Isn't "necessarily having properties" itself a property that bare particulars have? If this is the case, then do they have this property with necessity? This would undermine a "totality of independent reals," taking first order logic down with it.

Thanks,
KV

>>If bare particulars don't have properties necessarily, then I wonder how they can be characterized at all.<< Two points.

First, 'essentially' is the right word, not 'necessarily.' Socrates is essentially human -- human in every possible world in which he exists --but not necessarily human: he does not exist in every possible world. God is both essentially and necessarily omnipotent.

Second, BPs have accidental properties and they are characterizable in terms of them.

>>Isn't "necessarily having properties" itself a property that bare particulars have? If this is the case, then do they have this property with necessity?<<

This argument is plausible but not compelling. Bergmann could say that while it is true that every BP has properties, this truth does not require that there be a property of having properties that every BP instantiates.

Thank you for answering my questions. I still have many more, but I see that Bergmann is a good place to start for reconstructive metaphysics.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

September 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad