There is no haecceitic Euthyphro problem

Analysis 79 (3):477-484 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author's Profile

Alexander Skiles
Rutgers University - New Brunswick

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-07-13

Downloads
618 (#13,405)

6 months
97 (#8,614)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?