Abstract
AbstractThis paper is concerned with two concepts of qualitativeness that apply to intensional entities (i.e., properties, relations, and states of affairs). I propose an account of pure qualitativeness that largely follows the traditional understanding established by Carnap, and try to shed light on its ontological presuppositions. On this account, an intensional entity is purely qualitative iff it does not ‘involve’ any particular (i.e., anything that is not an intensional entity). An alternative notion of qualitativeness—which I propose to refer to as a concept of strict qualitativeness—has recently been introduced by Chad Carmichael. However, Carmichael’s definition presupposes a highly fine-grained conception of properties and relations. To eliminate this presupposition, I tentatively suggest a different definition that rests on a concept of perspicuous denotation. In the penultimate section, both concepts of qualitativeness are put to work in distinguishing between different ‘grades’ of qualitative discriminability.
Funder
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
Università della Svizzera italiana
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference97 articles.
1. Adams, R. M. (1979). Primitive thisness and primitive identity. The Journal of Philosophy, 76, 5–26.
2. Adams, R. M. (1981). Actualism and thisness. Synthese, 49, 3–41.
3. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Nominalism and realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Armstrong, D. M. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Audi, P. (2013). How to rule out disjunctive properties. Noûs, 47, 748–66.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献