There is no haecceitic Euthyphro problem

Analysis 79 (3):477-484 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SKITIN
Revision history
First archival date: 2018-07-13
Latest version: 2 (2018-07-13)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2018-07-13

Total views
234 ( #14,764 of 43,016 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
59 ( #10,714 of 43,016 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.