The Problem of Free Mass: Must Properties Cluster?
The Problem of Free Mass: Must Properties Cluster?
复制标题
自由质量问题：属性必须聚集吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Schaffer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Schaffer
房地产是成簇的。例如，一个物体不依附于任何其他物体而自由漂浮，这似乎是不可能的。大卫·阿姆斯特朗认为这是对捆绑理论的一种简化，是对底层的一种论证，而彼得·西蒙斯和阿尔达·登克尔则用财产相互依存的解释来补充捆绑理论。我反对这两种观点。事实上，所有看似合理的本体论都致力于自由群众的存在。我发展并捍卫了这样的观点：属性的聚集只是一个偶然的事实，因为属性可以逐个减去。这不仅为（未经补充的）束理论打开了大门，而且也为任何关于对象和属性之间关系的合理解释打开了大门。房地产是成簇的。任何有质量的东西都有形状、颜色和其他一系列的性质。为什么？为什么？为什么这一页纸的质量不能挣脱束缚，自己游荡，留下它的洁白和光滑？什么本体论原则，如果有的话，把属性结合在一起？我认为，孤独的属性，如自由质量是metaphorically可能的集群的属性只是一个偶然的事实。事实上，不仅所有可信的本体论都支持自由质量，而且通过属性减法的原理，可以为它们的可能性提供一个积极的案例。
Properties come in clusters. It seems impossible, for instance, that a mass could float free, unattached to any other property. David Armstrong takes this as a reductio of the bundle theory and an argument for substrata, while Peter Simons and Arda Denkel reply by supplementing the bundle theory with accounts of property interdependencies. I argue against both views. Virtually all plausible ontologies turn out to be committed to the existence of free masses. I develop and defend the view that the clustering of properties is a mere contingent truth, on grounds that properties can be subtracted one-byone. This opens the door not just to the (unsupplemented) bundle theory, but also to any plausible account of the relation between objects and properties. Properties come in clusters. Everything that has mass also has shape, color, and a full array of other properties. Why? Why can’t the mass of this page break free, and wander off by itself, leaving its whiteness and smoothness behind? What ontological principle, if any, binds properties together? I argue that lone properties such as free masses are metaphysically possible-the clustering of properties is merely a contingent fact. Not only do virtually all plausible ontologies countenance free masses, but a positive case can be made for their possibility via principles of property subtraction.