Trope Theory: a viable alternative to Substance Theory?
Thesis submitted for the degree
of M.Phil.
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, The University of Reading.
February
2004
Abstract
The thesis compares Substance Theory and Trope Theory .
Part 1 is descriptive. It outlines the Aristotelian theory of Primary Substances and Immanent Realism about Universals. It gives a brief history of amendments and alternatives put to it, from the Scholastics through to Quine and Sellars, emphasising that Trope Theory is not new but an amalgamation of recurrent ideas, namely disaffection with Substance Theory, Nominalism (a wish to dispense with universals), Empiricism/ Phenomenalism, Reductionism, and a wish to fit the latest science. Finally it presents the ideas of modern Trope Theorists: Stout, Williams, Campbell, Bacon, Martin and Simons.
Part 2, Section A analyses Trope Theory’s account for the apparent unity of ordinary things. It lists the problems many find with Substance Theory and the old Realist Bundle Theory, and acknowledges the apparent attractiveness of Trope Theory. It investigates Trope Theory’s various answers to ‘the binding problem’ (second order relations of compresence, location, substrata , nuclei) and finds them unsatisfactory, although not conclusively so, judging Simons’ nuclear strategy the most persuasive.
Part 2, Section B analyses Trope Theory’s account of properties. It lists the problems many find with Substance Theory and with earlier Nominalisms (Linguistic, Set and Resemblance), and again acknowledges the attractions of Trope Theory. It finds Trope Theory unsatisfactory however, as it inherits many of the older problems and is unable to explain the nature of properties or resemblance. It also has problems of its own, making predication symmetrical, and being contradictory and confused over what tropes are.
The Conclusion is: Trope Theory is interesting and some versions are better than others, but on balance, Substance theory is still preferable. It can deliver particularized modes, it can fit as well with science, and only universals can explain things and their ways.
Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………....…........................….1
Part 1. Setting the scene.
A. What Aristotelian Substance Theory holds.
1A.1. Preliminary remarks……… ………………………….......................…. 7
1A.2. Substances………………… ………………………......................….… 8
1A.3. Properties and relations…… ……………………......................………13
1A.4. Other entities……………………… ……………......................……..…14
1A.5. Universals………………………… ………………........................…….14
1A.6. Summary………………………… …………………......................…....15
B. A brief history of ideas that have reinterpreted, undermined or been put as alternatives to Substance Theory.
1B.1. Introduction……………………………..……......................…………..17
1B.2. The Scholastics…………………………..….......................………….18
1B.3. The Rationalists: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz…….................……..22
1B.4. The Empiricists: Locke, Berkeley, Hume…………..................……..29
1B.5. Kant: objects restored?...............................................................35
1B.6. Phenomenalism: Mill, Husserl, Whitehead……….................……...37
1B.7. New ideas: Russell, Quine, Sellars……………….................………43
1B.8. Summary……………………………………………….....................…50
C. Modern Trope Theory.
1C.1. G.F. Stout………………………………………...................…….…..52
1C.2. D.C. Williams ………………………………....................…………...59
1C.3. J. Bacon………………………………………...................…………..63
1C.4. K. Campbell………………………………………....................………64
1C.5. C.B. Martin……………………………………....................………….71
1C.6. P. Simons………………………………………..................…...…….73
Part 2. Critique of Trope Theory
A. How Trope Theory accounts for the apparent unity of familiar objects.
2A.1. Background
2A.1.1. Preliminary remarks…………………………………...............…..…..78
2A.1.2. Objections to Substance Theory’s account…………...........…..….. 79
2A.1.3. Problems with the old Bundle Theory……………….….............….. 83
2A.1.4. Motivations for Trope Theory……………….……………................... 85
2A.2. The Binding Problem
2A.2.1. Preliminary remarks…………………………….………..............….. 86
2A.2.2. Stout’s silence…………………………………................……………88
2A.2.3. Williams’ second order relations……………………..............………89
2A.2.4. Campbell’s primitive relations……………………...............…………91
2A.2.5. Martin’s substrata……………………………………...............………95
2A.2.6. Simons’ essential nuclear tropes……………………............……….96
2A.2.7. Summary………………………………………………................……102
B. How Trope Theory accounts for properties
2B.1. Preliminary remarks…………………………………..............……..105
2B.2. Objections to Substance Theory’s account ………..........………..108
2B.3. Difficulties with old Nominalist alternatives ………….............…...116
2B.4. Problems with Trope Theory’s solutions……………..............…...122
2B.4.1. Questions concerning predication…………………............……….122
2B.4.2. Difficulties with sets…………………………………..............……. 125
2B.4.3. Issues concerning resemblance…………………..........…………..129
2B.4.4. Worries as to what tropes are: identity and individuation..........…
134
C. Conclusion ……………………………………………………...................…..143
Bibliography …………………………………………………....................……….147