Ontological Collectivism

IF 1.6 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Raul Saucedo
{"title":"Ontological Collectivism","authors":"Raul Saucedo","doi":"10.1111/phpe.12175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given some things, what’s prior: those things taken individually or those things taken collectively? Is each of them prior to them, or are they prior to every one of them? Is each thing prior to the things, or are the things themselves prior to each thing itself? This is, at a very rough first pass, the general question at the heart of a neglected debate in foundational ontology, the debate over the relative ontological priority of individuality and collectivity. What’s prior, each of some entities or those very entities? Are some objects taken separately prior to those objects taken together, or are the objects taken together prior to the objects taken separately? Using a common piece of jargon: given some things, what’s prior, every single such thing or the plurality of them?1 The question ought not to be confused with others that have interested metaphysicians both across history and in more recent years. For instance, what’s at issue is not the relative priority of some entities and a further entity that’s somehow made out of those entities (a mereological fusion of them, a class or set of them, a fact or proposition about them, and so forth). That concerns the relative priority of some things (whether taken individually or collectively) and a somehow composite thing to which they bear some sort of intimate, constitutive relation (parthood, membership, etc.). The question is instead over the relative priority of each of some objects and those very objects—the focus is on individuality and collectivity proper, not on compositeness and componency. Similarly, the issue is not with the relative priority of some entities and a network of relations that those entities bear to one another. The concern there is with the relative priority of how some things are in isolation from each other and how they are in relation to each other. Our question is instead over how each of some objects is (whether in isolation from or in relation to others) and how those objects are—the focus is on singularity and plurality as such, not on isolation and relationality. Of *Many thanks to Ross Cameron, Michael Della Rocca, Heather Demarest, Cian Dorr, Nina Emery, Kit Fine, Rob Koons, Daniel Nolan, Laurie Paul, David Plunkett, Jonathan Schaffer, Erica Shumener, Gabriel Uzquiano, and Seth Yalcin for extensive feedback on previous versions of this material. 1Jargon: a plurality of things isn’t a further thing, which is somehow made out of those things. Rather, it’s just those things, the things themselves—those very things taken together, i.e. taken collectively.","PeriodicalId":51519,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12175","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Given some things, what’s prior: those things taken individually or those things taken collectively? Is each of them prior to them, or are they prior to every one of them? Is each thing prior to the things, or are the things themselves prior to each thing itself? This is, at a very rough first pass, the general question at the heart of a neglected debate in foundational ontology, the debate over the relative ontological priority of individuality and collectivity. What’s prior, each of some entities or those very entities? Are some objects taken separately prior to those objects taken together, or are the objects taken together prior to the objects taken separately? Using a common piece of jargon: given some things, what’s prior, every single such thing or the plurality of them?1 The question ought not to be confused with others that have interested metaphysicians both across history and in more recent years. For instance, what’s at issue is not the relative priority of some entities and a further entity that’s somehow made out of those entities (a mereological fusion of them, a class or set of them, a fact or proposition about them, and so forth). That concerns the relative priority of some things (whether taken individually or collectively) and a somehow composite thing to which they bear some sort of intimate, constitutive relation (parthood, membership, etc.). The question is instead over the relative priority of each of some objects and those very objects—the focus is on individuality and collectivity proper, not on compositeness and componency. Similarly, the issue is not with the relative priority of some entities and a network of relations that those entities bear to one another. The concern there is with the relative priority of how some things are in isolation from each other and how they are in relation to each other. Our question is instead over how each of some objects is (whether in isolation from or in relation to others) and how those objects are—the focus is on singularity and plurality as such, not on isolation and relationality. Of *Many thanks to Ross Cameron, Michael Della Rocca, Heather Demarest, Cian Dorr, Nina Emery, Kit Fine, Rob Koons, Daniel Nolan, Laurie Paul, David Plunkett, Jonathan Schaffer, Erica Shumener, Gabriel Uzquiano, and Seth Yalcin for extensive feedback on previous versions of this material. 1Jargon: a plurality of things isn’t a further thing, which is somehow made out of those things. Rather, it’s just those things, the things themselves—those very things taken together, i.e. taken collectively.
本体论集体主义
给定一些东西,什么是优先的:那些单独采取的还是那些集体采取的?是每一个都先于它们,还是每一个都先于它们?是每一事物先于事物,还是事物本身先于每一事物本身?粗略地说,这是基础本体论中一个被忽视的争论的核心问题,关于个体和集体的相对本体论优先权的争论。什么是优先的,是某些实体中的每一个还是那些实体本身?是把一些对象分开后再把这些对象放在一起,还是把这些对象放在一起后再把它们分开?用一个常见的术语:给定一些事物,哪个优先,是每一个还是多个?这个问题不应该与历史上和近年来形而上学家感兴趣的其他问题混淆。例如,争论的焦点不是某些实体的相对优先级,以及由这些实体组成的另一个实体(它们的流变融合,一类或一组实体,关于它们的事实或命题,等等)。这涉及到一些事物的相对优先级(无论是单独的还是集体的)和某种程度上的复合事物,它们具有某种亲密的,构成的关系(部分,成员,等等)。相反,问题在于某些对象和那些对象的相对优先级——重点是个体性和集体性,而不是组合性和组件性。同样,问题不在于某些实体的相对优先地位以及这些实体彼此之间的关系网络。这里关注的是一些事物如何相互孤立以及它们如何相互联系的相对优先级。相反,我们的问题是某些对象中的每一个是怎样的(无论是孤立于其他对象还是相对于其他对象),以及这些对象是怎样的——重点是单一性和多元性本身,而不是孤立性和相关性。非常感谢Ross Cameron, Michael Della Rocca, Heather Demarest, ian Dorr, Nina Emery, Kit Fine, Rob Koons, Daniel Nolan, Laurie Paul, David Plunkett, Jonathan Schaffer, Erica Shumener, Gabriel Uzquiano和Seth Yalcin对本材料之前版本的广泛反馈。1 .行话:事物的复数不是一个进一步的事物,它是由这些事物组成的。相反,它只是那些东西,这些东西本身——这些东西放在一起,即集体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信