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’.

I raise three questions concerning Locke's doctrine of substratum, in the light of his correspondence with Stillingfleet: (1) What was his doctrine?(2) Is it philosophically defensible?(3) Is it consistent with his empiricist epistemology? I defend answers which represent Locke's doctrine as being only partially successful but amenable to improvement in certain ways. C.B. Martin has proposed an alternative interpretation of Locke's position. I examine this and find it to be admirable in many respects but implausible in others.

Following the lead of Gustav Bergmann ( 1967 ), if not his precise terminology, ontologies are sometimes divided into those that are ‘relational’ and those that are ‘constituent’ (Wolterstorff 1970 ). Substance ontologies in the Aristotelian tradition are commonly thought of as being constituent ontologies, because they typically espouse the hylemorphic dualism of Aristotle ’s Metaphysics – a doctrine according to which an individual substance is always a combination of matter and form. But an alternative approach drawing more on the fourfold ontological scheme of Aristotle’s Categories is not committed to this doctrine and may regard individual (or ‘primary’) substances as having no constituent structure, their only possible complexity residing in their possession, in some cases, of a multiplicity of substantial parts. However, as we shall see, this does not imply that such an ontology falls instead into the relational camp: for although it invokes, in addition to the category of individual substance, also those of substantial kind (‘secondary’ substance), attribute, and mode (or ‘individual accident’), it need not and arguably should not take there to be external relations between entities in the different categories. On this view, truths of exemplification and instantiation, such as ‘Dobbin is white’ and ‘Dobbin is a horse’, do not need relational truthmakers. Hence, it can be maintained that there are no such relations as ‘exemplification’ and ‘instantiation’, at most only certain relational truths of exemplification and instantiation – truths whose logical form is relational. Th is being so, I shall argue, such an ontology cannot fairly be classified as a ‘relational’ one.