Taking monism seriously

被引:7
作者
Cornell, David M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Manchester Metropolitan Univ, Dept Hist Polit & Philosophy, Geoffrey Manton Bldg,Rosamund St West, Manchester M15 6LL, Lancs, England
关键词
Monism; Mereology; Common sense; Properties; Distributional properties;
D O I
10.1007/s11098-015-0620-0
中图分类号
B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ;
摘要
Monism is the view that there is only a single material object in existence: the world. According to this view, therefore, the ordinary objects of common sense-cats and hats, cars and stars, and so on-do not actually exist; there is only the world. Because of this, monism is routinely dismissed in the contemporary literature as being absurd and obviously false. It is simply obvious that there is a plurality of material things, thus it is simply obvious that monism is false, or so the argument goes. I call this the common sense argument against monism and in this paper I offer a response. I argue that providing the monist can make his view consistent with the appearance that there is a multiplicity of material things, then it is not rationally acceptable to reject monism solely on the basis of that appearance. Through an appeal to a particular type of property-distributional properties-I sketch out a plausible story of how monism is perfectly consistent with the appearance of plurality, and thus nullify the common sense argument. There may be any number of arguments that serve to undermine monism, but the common sense argument is not one of them. Monism deserves to be taken more seriously than that.
引用
收藏
页码:2397 / 2415
页数:19
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Word and Object
[2]   PARMENIDES AND THE ELEATIC ONE [J].
BARNES, J .
ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE, 1979, 61 (01) :1-21
[3]   Monism and statespace: a reply to Sider [J].
Cornell, David M. .
ANALYSIS, 2013, 73 (02) :230-236
[4]  
Goff P., 2012, Spinoza on Monism, P113
[5]  
Hoffman Joshua - Rosenkrantz., 1997, Substance: Its Nature and Existence
[6]  
Horgan T., 2000, Facta Philosophica, V2, P249
[7]  
Horgan T., 2008, Austere Realism
[8]   TOWARDS ONTOLOGICAL NIHILISM [J].
OLEARYHAWTHORNE, J ;
CORTENS, A .
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES, 1995, 79 (02) :143-165
[9]   Must a four-dimensionalist believe in temporal parts? [J].
Parsons, J .
MONIST, 2000, 83 (03) :399-418
[10]  
Parsons J., 2004, Lewisian Themes: The Philosophy of David K. Lewis, P173