Bradley’s Regress, Russell’s States of Affairs, and Some General Remarks on the Problem
In this paper, I will give a presentation of Bradley's two main arguments against the reality of relations. Whereas one of his arguments is highly specific to Bradley's metaphysical background, his famous regress argument seems to pose a serious threat not only for ontological pluralism, b...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | deu |
| Published: |
University of Tartu
2008-12-01
|
| Series: | Studia Philosophica Estonica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.spe.ut.ee/ojs/index.php/spe/article/download/18/22 |
| Summary: | In this paper, I will give a presentation of Bradley's two main arguments against the reality of relations. Whereas one of his arguments is highly specific to Bradley's metaphysical background, his famous regress argument seems to pose a serious threat not only for ontological pluralism, but especially for states of affairs as an ontological category. Amongst the proponents of states-of-affairs ontologies two groups can be distinguished: One group holds states of affairs to be complexes consisting of their particular and universal constituents alone, the other holds that there has to be a "unifying relation" of some sort to establish the unity of a given state of affairs. Bradley's regress is often conceived to be a compelling argument against the first and for the latter. I will argue that the latter approaches have no real advantage over the simpler theories—neither in the light of Bradley's regress nor in other respects. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1406-0000 1736-5899 |