Evaluation of Haecceitism from the Viewpoint of the Contemporary Analytical Philosophers’ Arguments in Defense of Haecceity

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Qazvin Imam Khomeini International University

2 -

3 Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Islamic Sciences and Research, Imam Khomeini International University

Abstract

Contemporary analytical philosophers have provided arguments to prove haecceity in beings. These arguments can be divided into two general categories. The first category is called conceivability arguments and the second category is the arguments known as the Chisholm’s paradox. All these arguments seek to prove a non-qualitative feature in objects or any of the possible worlds, which can exclusively distinguish that object or possible world from other objects or possible worlds. This special non-qualitative feature is specific to haecceity. This article while touching upon both categories of arguments that have been presented so far for haecceitism, has examined the critiques offered on these arguments and came to the conclusion that none of these arguments are inviolable from the perspective of opposition to haecceitism. On the other hand, by stating the consequences and challenges encountered by the opponents of haecceitism, it has generally assessed that haecceitism is an acceptable idea despite the fact that all its arguments are unacceptable or at least debatable; because, even irrespective of the challenges faced by the opponents of haecceitism, it seems to be a more acceptable explanation for understanding the distinctions of beings from one another.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. ابن‌سینا (1788ق)، الهیات من کتاب الشفا، محقق آیه الله حسن‌زاده الآملی، قم: مرکز چاپ و نشر تبلیغات اسلامی بوستان کتاب.
  2. ارسطو (1371)، متافیزیک (مابعدالطبیعه)، ترجمۀ شرف‌الدین خراسانی (شـرف)، تهـران: انتشـارات حکمت.
  3. Adams, R. M. (1979) “Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity” Journal of Philosophy, 76: 5–26.
  4. Ackrill, J, L. (1963), Aristotle s Categories and De Interpretatione, translstion and notes, Clarendon Aristotle Series, Oxford, (corrected ed.: 4. 1966)
  5. Aristotle (1963) , Aristotle s Categories and De Interpretatione, translstion and notes Ackrill, J, L. (1963) Clarendon Aristotle Series, Oxford, (corrected ed.: 4. 1966)
  6. Black, Max (1952), “The Identity of Indiscernibles.” Mind, No. 61: pp. 153–164.
  7. Chisholm, Roderick, 1967, “Identity through Possible Worlds”, Noûs, No.1: pp. 1–8.
  8. Cowling, S , (2015), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/haecceitism
  9. Duns Scotus (2005), Early Oxford Lecture on Individuation, Latin Text with English Translation and Introduction: Wolter, Allan B. (2005). First published, New York: The Fransiscan Institute.
  10. Della Rocca, Michael (2005), “Two Spheres, Twenty Spheres, and the Identity of Indiscernibles”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,No.86: pp. 480–492.
  11. Dasgupta, Shamik (2009), “Individuals: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics”, Philosophical Studies, No.145: pp.35–67.
  12. Forbes, Graeme (1984), “Two Solutions to Chisholm’s Paradox” Philosophical Studies, No.46: pp. 171–187.
  13. Forbes, Graeme (2016), “The Metaphysics of Modality” Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy, Web Edition
  14. Hawley, Katherine (2009), “Identity and Indiscernibility” Mind, No.118: pp.101–119
  15. Kripke, Saul (1980), Naming and Necessity, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  16. Lewis, David (1983), “Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation” Philosophical Review, No.92: pp.3–32.
  17. Lewis, David (1986),  On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Blackwell.
  18. Routledge (2018), https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/haecceity-and-thisness/v-11, 4324/0123456789-N129-1
  19. Rosenkrantz, Gary (1993), Haecceity, Kluwer: Dordrecht.
  20. Salmon, Nathan (1986), “Modal Paradox: Parts and Counterparts, Points and Counterpoints” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, No.11: pp. 75–120.
  21. Salmon, Nathan (1989), “The Logic of What Might Have Been”, Philosophical Review, No.98: pp.3–34.
  22. Wolter, Allan (2005), Introduction Duns Scotus; Early Oxford Lecture on Individuation, Latin Text with English Translation and Introduction: Wolter, Allan B., First published, New York: The Fransiscan Institute, ix–xxvii

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics