On Armstrong’s Radical Absolutism
-
Julien Tricard
Abstract
Within the metaphysics of quantity, the debate rages between Absolutism and Comparativism. In retrospect, Armstrong appears to be an absolutist, for he claims that magnitudes like being 1 kg in mass are intrinsic properties of particulars, in virtue of which relations like being twice as massive as hold. More importantly, his theory is an instance of what I call ‘Radical Absolutism’ (and the only on the market), for he does not merely argue that relations are grounded in magnitudes, but also (and quite admirably) tries to explain how they “flow from” (his words) the intrinsic features of magnitudes. The goal of the paper is not to support his theory, but to better understand why it fails, and why this must be of concern to contemporary absolutists.
-
Research funding: No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
-
Conflict of interest statement: I have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
-
Availability of data and material (data transparency): Not applicable.
-
Code availability (software application or custom code): Not applicable.
-
Consent for publication: I confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. I thus consent for its publication.
References
Armstrong, D. M. 1983. What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316499030Suche in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1986. “In Defense of Structural Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1): 85–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048408612342261.Suche in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1988. “Are Quantities Relations? A Reply to Bigelow and Pargetter.” Philosophical Studies 54 (3): 305–16.10.1007/BF00646273Suche in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1989. Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1997. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511583308Suche in Google Scholar
Armstrong, and Forrest 1987. “The Nature of Number.” Philosophical Papers 16 (3): 165–86.10.1080/05568648709506275Suche in Google Scholar
Balashov, Y. 1999. “Zero-Value Physical Quantities.” Synthese 119 (3): 253–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005177016330.10.1023/A:1005177016330Suche in Google Scholar
Dasgupta, S. 2013. “Absolutism vs Comparativism about Quantity.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 8, edited by K. Bennett, and D. Zimmerman, 105–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682904.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682904.003.0003Suche in Google Scholar
Eddon, M. 2007. “Armstrong on Quantities and Resemblance.” Philosophical Studies 136 (3): 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-5384-5.Suche in Google Scholar
Eddon, M. 2013a. “Fundamental Properties of Fundamental Properties.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 8, edited by K. Bennett, and D. Zimmerman, 78–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682904.003.0002.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682904.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar
Eddon, M. 2013b. “Quantitative Properties.” Philosophy Compass 8 (7): 633–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12049.Suche in Google Scholar
Krantz, D., R. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. 1971. Foundations of Measurement, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-425401-5.50011-8Suche in Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. “Against Structural Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1): 25–46.10.1017/CBO9780511625343.004Suche in Google Scholar
Martens, N. C. 2016. “Against Comparativism about Mass in Newtonian Gravity—A Case Study in the Metaphysics of Scale.” Ph.D. Thesis. University of Oxford.Suche in Google Scholar
Michell, J. 1997. “Bertrand Russell’s 1897 Critique of the Traditional Theory of Measurement.” Synthese 110 (2): 257–76. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004985226963.10.1023/A:1004985226963Suche in Google Scholar
Mundy, B. 1987. “The Metaphysics of Quantity.” Philosophical Studies 51 (1): 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00353961.Suche in Google Scholar
Sider, T. 2020. The Tools of Metaphysics and the Metaphysics of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198811565.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Swoyer, C. 1987. “The Metaphysics of Measurement.” In Measurement, Realism and Objectivity, edited by Forge, 235–90. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3919-6_8.Suche in Google Scholar
Wilson, J. M. 2014. “No Work for a Theory of Grounding.” Inquiry 57 (5–6): 535–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2014.907542.Suche in Google Scholar
Wolff, J. E. 2020. The Metaphysics of Quantities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198837084.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Original Papers
- Quantum Entanglement Undermines Structural Realism
- A Belief Expressionist Explanation of Divine Conceptualist Mathematics
- A Short Argument against Truthmaker Maximalism
- The Evil That Free Will Does: Plantinga’s Dubious Defense
- The Dead Past Dilemma
- The Role of Logic in Metaphysical Theorizing
- Reducing Constitution to Composition
- On Armstrong’s Radical Absolutism
- Objective Facts
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Original Papers
- Quantum Entanglement Undermines Structural Realism
- A Belief Expressionist Explanation of Divine Conceptualist Mathematics
- A Short Argument against Truthmaker Maximalism
- The Evil That Free Will Does: Plantinga’s Dubious Defense
- The Dead Past Dilemma
- The Role of Logic in Metaphysical Theorizing
- Reducing Constitution to Composition
- On Armstrong’s Radical Absolutism
- Objective Facts
