Offline
A follow-up to my properties poll. Still trying to find out where everyone stands:
Offline
Modified Aristotelian view: substances are unified imminentizing Form.
Offline
Both polls are still open.
Offline
I need more time to vote. To those who believe in the existence of bare/thin particulars, how do you establish their existence?
Offline
Dennis wrote:
To those who believe in the existence of bare/thin particulars, how do you establish their existence?
To make a long story short, people posit thin particulars to solve the problem of individuation.
Offline
Other: Single continuum. (Spiritual monism)
Offline
Well, I take universals to be the substances of the world and that individuation is a matter of haeccitas (Other). I suppose I'm taking this to be a primitive, and I'm going to change my mind sooner rather than later. If this commits me to something like Bundle-theory for now, so be it, but that's my position (for now).
Last edited by Dennis (10/04/2016 10:23 am)
Offline
Dennis wrote:
Well, I take universals to be the substances of the world and that individuation is a matter of haeccitas (Other). I suppose I'm taking this to be a primitive, and I'm going to change my mind sooner rather than later. If this commits me to something like Bundle-theory for now, so be it, but that's my position (for now).
I shall check you in the bare particulars row.
Offline
John West wrote:
I shall check you in the bare particulars row.
I thought I was going to be the only one who chooses bare particulars so this is a pleasant surprise.
Offline
seigneur wrote:
Other: Single continuum. (Spiritual monism)
Well, even Hegelians and Spinozists hold that the whole, or whatever is a substance in some sense. Since I'm tempted to monism I didn't want to bake-in a determination about plurality into my thought about substance.