Is the abstract vs concrete distinction exhaustive & exclusive? Four reasons to be suspicious

Analytic Philosophy 65 (3):393-405 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

There is a widespread consensus within analytic metaphysics that the abstract versus concrete distinction, if valid at all, must be thought of as exhaustive and exclusive. I present four arguments designed to cast doubt on this consensus.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,757

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-12-21

Downloads
80 (#263,683)

6 months
24 (#130,549)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Travis Dumsday
Concordia University of Edmonton

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

A World of States of Affairs.D. M. Armstrong - 1993 - Philosophical Perspectives 7:429-440.
Necessary existents.Timothy Williamson - 2002 - In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Logic, Thought and Language. Cambridge University Press. pp. 233-251.
"Bare particulars".Theodore Sider - 2006 - Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):387–397.
Substance substantiated.C. B. Martin - 1980 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58 (1):3 – 10.

View all 28 references / Add more references