The Import of the Original Bradley’s Regress(es)

Perovic, Katarina

doi:10.1007/s10516-014-9229-8

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, some authors claim that the generated regress is not vicious and so no solution to BR is needed (Gaskin 1995;Orilia 2002). Second, a common response to BR is to claim that regress is not generated because no further explanation is required to show why situations like (Ia) and (IIa) are different, as the very nature of relations is that they successfully connect elements (Butchvarov 1981;Perovic 2014). Another version of this response is to postulate that the relation of instantiation is not in fact a relation but a "non-relational tie" that has different properties to usual relations which make it immune to BR (Armstrong 1997, p. 30;Lewis 2002;Pelletier and Zalta 2000).…”

Section: Bradley's Regress and Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bradley’s Regress and Visual Content

Skrzypulec

2018

Axiomathes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the well-known Bradley's Regress argument, one cannot explain the unity of states of affairs by referring to relations combining objects with properties. This argument has been widely discussed within analytic metaphysics, but has not been recognized as relevant for the philosophy of perception. I argue that the mainstream characterization of visual content is threatened by the Bradley's Regress, and the most influential metaphysical solutions to the regress argument cannot be applied in the context of visual content. However, I show that a proper solution to Bradley's Regress can be formulated by taking into consideration features of visual content suggested by empirical research in vision science.

show abstract

Section: Bradley's Regress and Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bradley’s Regress and Visual Content

Skrzypulec

2018

Axiomathes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But such conclusion seems rather quick and unsubstantiated since it is far from clear what exactly generates the vicious regress of relations described by Vallicella. Can it be that Vallicella has simply assumed that relations cannot 6 For a detailed reconstruction and analysis of Bradley's original regress arguments as well as criticisms of the Bradleyean underpinnings of contemporary attacks on relations see Perovic (2014). 7 As it is argued in Perovic (2014), Bradley's original regress arguments are brought forth against a relational unity of a bundle of qualities, and they rely upon a number of unsubstantiated assumptions about relations.…”

Section: States Of Affairs and The Problems Of Unitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Neo-Armstrongian Defense of States of Affairs: A Reply to Vallicella

Perovic

2016

Metaphysica

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vallicella’s influential work makes a case that, when formulated broadly, as a problem about unity, Bradley’s challenge to Armstrongian states of affairs is practically insurmountable. He argues that traditional relational and non-relational responses to Bradley are inadequate, and many in the current metaphysical debate on this issue have come to agree. In this paper, I argue that such a conclusion is too hasty. Firstly, the problem of unity as applied to Armstrongian states of affairs is not clearly defined; in fact, it has taken a number of different forms each of which need to be carefully distinguished and further supported. Secondly, once we formulate the problem in more neutral terms, as a request for a characterization of the way that particulars, universals, and states of affairs stand to one another, it can be adequately addressed by an Armstrongian about states of affairs. I propose the desiderata for an adequate characterization and present a neo-Armstrongian defense of states of affairs that meets those desiderata. The latter relies on an important distinction between different notions of fundamentality and existential dependence.

show abstract

“…Fourthly, identify later stages with their predecessors and accept cyclical generation. For more on Bradleyan regresses see (Perovic 2017) and Chs. XX, YY, this volume.…”

Section: Fundamentalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantification and ontological commitment

2015

An Introduction to Metametaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Import of the Original Bradley’s Regress(es)

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Bradley’s Regress and Visual Content

Bradley’s Regress and Visual Content

A Neo-Armstrongian Defense of States of Affairs: A Reply to Vallicella

Quantification and ontological commitment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About