There is No Haecceitic Euthyphro Problem
Analysis:any061 (forthcoming)
Abstract
Jason Bowers and Meg Wallace have recently argued that those who hold that every individual instantiates a ‘haecceity’ are caught up in a Euthyphro-style dilemma when confronted with familiar cases of fission and fusion. Key to Bowers and Wallace’s dilemma are certain assumptions about the nature of metaphysical explanation and the explanatory commitments of belief in haecceities. However, I argue that the dilemma only arises due to a failure to distinguish between providing a metaphysical explanation of why a fact holds vs. a metaphysical explanation of what it is for a fact to hold. In the process, I also shed light on the explanatory commitments of belief in haecceities.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SKITIN
Revision history

Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.Rosen, Gideon
Grounding, Transitivity, and Contrastivity.Schaffer, Jonathan
Metaphysical Rationalism.Dasgupta, Shamik
View all 15 references / Add more references

No citations found.
Added to PP index
2018-07-13
Total downloads
161 ( #15,517 of 37,117 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
87 ( #3,720 of 37,117 )
2018-07-13
Total downloads
161 ( #15,517 of 37,117 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
87 ( #3,720 of 37,117 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.