Predication, Anaphora and Properties

Journal title PARADIGMI
Author/s Francesco F. Calemi
Publishing Year 2015 Issue 2014/3
Language Italian Pages 18 P. 125-142 File size 72 KB
DOI 10.3280/PARA2014-003009
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Many realists and nominalists, guided by a specific interpretation of the nature of the debate concerning the existence of properties, agree in holding that predicative sentences of the form «a is F» - whereas the schematic letters «a» and «F» stand for, respectively, a name of a particular and a general term -, taken by themselves alone, don’t commit us to the existence of properties. In this paper I’ll take into account the main versions of realism and nominalism that assume the correctness of that thesis, then, moving from what I call "the argument from the anaphoric anomaly", I’ll bring them into question pointing out that their debate is misguided. .

Keywords: Abstract reference, anaphora, nominalism, predication, realism, universals.

  1. Abbott B. (2010). Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Armstrong D.M. (1978a). Universals and Scientific Realism: Nominalism and Realism. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Armstrong D.M. (1978b). Universals and Scientific Realism: A Theory of Universals. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Armstrong D.M. (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.
  5. Aune B. (1984). Armstrong on Universals and Particulars. In: Bogdan R.J., ed. D. M. Armstrong. Dordrecht: Reidel: 161-9. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-6280-4_
  6. Bergmann G. (1954). Particularity and the New Nominalism. Methodos, 6: 131-47.
  7. Bergmann G. (1960). Ineffability, Ontology, and Method. The Philosophical Review, 69, 1: 18-40. DOI: 10.2307/218226
  8. Bergmann G. (1964). Generality and Existence. In: Bergmann G. Logic and Reality. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 64-84.
  9. Bonino G. (2008). Universali/particolari. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  10. Calemi F.F. (2011). Metafisica e metaontologia. Le ragioni dell’apparenza tra quantificazione e fondazione. In: van Inwagen P. Metafisica. Siena: Cantagalli: i-xx.
  11. Calemi F.F. (2012). Dal nominalismo al platonismo. Il problema degli universali nella filosofia contemporanea. Milano: Mimesis.
  12. Chisholm R.M. (1996). A Realistic Theory of Categories: An Essay on Ontology. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. De Sanctis F. (1998). Schopenhauer e Leopardi e altri saggi leopardiani. Como: Ibis.
  14. Devitt M. (1980). ‘Ostrich Nominalism’ or ‘Mirage Realism’?. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 61: 433-9.
  15. Donagan A. (1970). Universals and Metaphysical Realism. In: Loux M.J., ed. Universals and Particulars: Readings in Ontology. New York: Anchor Books, pp. 128-58.
  16. Dummett M. (1973). Frege: Philosophy of Language. Londra: Duckworth.
  17. Ellis B. (2001). Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Gracia J.J.E. (1988). Individuality: An Essay on the Foundations of Metaphysics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  19. Hochberg H. (1967). Nominalism, platonism and “being true of”. Noüs, 1, 4: 413-9. DOI: 10.2307/221462
  20. Jubien M. (1997). Contemporary Metaphysics: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
  21. Künne W. (2006). Properties in Abundance. In: Strawson P.F., Chakrabarti A., eds. Universals, Concepts and Qualities: New Essays on the Meaning of Predicates. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 249-300.
  22. Lando G. (2010). Ontologia. Un’introduzione. Roma: Carocci.
  23. Leftow B. (2006). God and the Problem of Universals. In: Zimmerman D. W., ed. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 325-56.
  24. Loux M.J. (1978). Substance and Attribute: A Study in Ontology. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-9874-
  25. Loux M.J. (2006). Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge.
  26. Lowe E.J. (2006). The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  27. Macdonald C. (2005). Varieties of Things: Foundations of Contemporary Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher. DOI: 10.1002/978047077568
  28. Mill J.S. (1843). System of Logic. Londra: Routledge.
  29. O’Connor D.J. (1952-1953). Names and Universals. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 53: 173-88.
  30. Oliver A. (1996). The Metaphysics of Properties. Mind, 105, 417: 1-80. DOI: 10.1093/mind/105.417
  31. Quine W.V.O. (1951). Ontology and Ideology. Philosophical Studies, 2, 1: 11-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF0219823
  32. Quine W.V.O. (1953). Logic and the Reification of Universals. In: Quine W.V.O. From a Logical Point of View: Nine Logico-Philosophical Essays. Cambridge:
  33. Harvard University Press (trad. it.: La logica e la reificazione degli universali. In: Quine W.V.O. Da un punto di vista logico. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore, 2004, pp. 129-60).
  34. Quinton A. (1973). The Nature of Things. Londra: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  35. Rodríguez-Pereyra G. (2002). Resemblance Nominalism: A Solution to the Problem of Universals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  36. Rosenkrantz G.S. (1993). Haecceity: An Ontological Essay. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-015-8175-
  37. Russell B. (1912). The World of Universals. In: Russell B. The problems of philosophy. New York: Home University Library (trad. it.: I problemi della filosofia. Milano: Feltrinelli, 2007).
  38. Searle J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Londra: Cambridge University Press (trad. it.: Atti linguistici. Torino: Bollati Boringheri, 1992).
  39. Sen P.C. (1978). A Sketch of a Theory of Properties and Relations. In: Mohanty J. et al., eds. Self, Knowledge and Freedom: Essays for Kalidas Bhattacharya. Calcutta: World Press, pp. 198-217.
  40. Stemmer N. (2007). On Universals: An Extensionalist Alternative to Quine’s Resemblance Theory. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 38, 1: 75-90. DOI: 10.1007/s10838-007-9037-
  41. Strawson P.F. (1987). Concepts and Properties or Predication and Copulation. The Philosophical Quarterly, 37, 149: 402-6. DOI: 10.2307/221956
  42. Swoyer C. (1999). How Ontology Might Be Possible: Explanation and Inference in Metaphysics. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 1: 100-31. DOI: 10.1111/1475-4975.0000
  43. Van Inwagen P. (2004). A Theory of Properties. In: Zimmerman D.W., ed. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107-38.
  44. Wiggins D. (1984). The Sense and Reference of Predicates: A Running Repair to Frege’s Doctrine and a Plea for the Copula. The Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 136: 311-28. DOI: 10.2307/221876

Francesco F. Calemi, Predicazione, anafora e proprietà in "PARADIGMI" 3/2014, pp 125-142, DOI: 10.3280/PARA2014-003009