E. J. Lowe

(1950 - 2014)

La connaissance métaphysique est accessible et nous possédons un tel type de connaissance. Il faut pratiquer la métaphysique de manière directe, sans passer par des considérations de philosophie du langage ou de l'esprit. Les deux principales critiques de la métaphysique sont : le naturalisme évolutionniste et le kantisme. Le naturalisme est incohérent car il nie la possibilité défaire des hypothèses métaphysiques et pourtant il repose sur de telles hypothèses. Kant également ne va pas au bout de son projet, car on ne peut éviter la question du contenu des pensées, une fois qu'on a réduit la métaphysique à une théorie de la connaissance. L'examen des arguments de Barcan-Kripke confirme la possibilité d'une argumentation métaphysique et l'impossibilité d'y échapper. Metaphysical knowledge is accessible and indeed, we have such a knowledge. Metaphysics shoud be done directly, without starting with considerations of philosophy of language or philosophy of mind. The two main critiques of metaphysics are evolutionary naturalism and Kantianism. Naturalism is inconsistent because it denies any possibility to make metaphysical hypotheses, but it hinges upon such hypotheses. Kant is also inconsistent because one cannot avoid the question of the content of thoughts once metaphysics has been reduced to epistemology. A scrutiny of the arguments by Barcan and Kripke confirms the possibility of a purely metaphysical argumentation and the impossibility to do without it.

It has long been debated whether objects are ‘sortally’ individuated. This paper begins by clarifying some of the key terms in play—in particular, ‘sortal’, ‘individuation’, and ‘object’. The term ‘individuation’ is taken to have both a cognitive and a metaphysical sense, in the former denoting the singling out of an object in thought and in the latter a determination relation between entities. ‘Sortalism’ is defined as the doctrine that only as falling under some specific sortal concept can an object be successfully singled out in thought. It is argued that such a view is too strong, but that a weaker one, ‘categorialism’, can be defended, this implying that a thinker cannot successfully single out an object in thought without having at least an implicit grasp of the criterion of identity that the object satisfies.

Locke notoriously included number amongst the primary qualities of bodies and was roundly criticized for doing so by Berkeley. Frege echoed some of Berkeley's criticisms in attacking the idea that ‘Number is a property of external things’, while defending his own view that number is a property of concepts. In the present paper, Locke's view is defended against the objections of Berkeley and Frege, and Frege's alternative view of number is criticized. More precisely, it is argued that numbers are assignable to pluralities of individuals. However, it is also argued that Locke went too far in asserting that ‘Number applies itself to ... everything that either doth exist, or can be imagined’.

Introduction , Sophie Gibb 1. Mental Causation , John Heil 2. Physical Realization without Preemption , Sydney Shoemaker 3. Mental Causation in the Physical World , Peter Menzies 4. Mental Causation: Ontology and Patterns of Variation , Paul Noordhof 5. Causation is Macroscopic but not Irreducible , David Papineau 6. Substance Causation, Powers, and Human Agency , E. J. Lowe 7. Agent Causation in a Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics , Jonathan D. Jacobs and Timothy O’Connor 8. Mental Causation and Double Prevention , Sophie Gibb 9. The Identity Theory as a Solution to the Exclusion Problem , David Robb 10. Continuant Causation, Fundamentality, and Freedom , Peter Simons 11. There is no Exclusion Problem , Steinvor Tholl Arnadottir and Tim Crane

Eric T. Olson has argued that those who hold that two material objects can exactly coincide at a moment of time, with one of these objects constituting the other, face an insuperable difficulty in accounting for the alleged differences between the objects, such as their being of different kinds and possessing different persistence-conditions. The differences, he suggests, are inexplicable, given that the objects in question are composed of the same particles related in precisely the same way. In response, I show that the differences are not at all inexplicable once it is recognized that the conditions for a persisting object to be composed by certain particles at a moment of time must involve facts concerning other moments of time, and that the relevant facts are different for persisting objects of different kinds. Philosophers who neglect this sort of constraint on composition principles may be said to be victims of the 'cinematographic fallacy'