Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-42qgm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T09:47:18.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nihilism without Self-Contradiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2008

David Liggins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Last weekend, I made a bookcase. To begin with, I went and bought various pieces of wood and several screws. Then I screwed the pieces of wood together. In doing so, I created something new: my bookcase. And this bookcase is made up of the pieces of wood and the screws. In other words, they're parts of it.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 62 , July 2008 , pp. 177 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brock, Stuart 1993. Modal fictionalism: a response to Rosen. Mind 102: 147–150.Google Scholar
Brock, Stuart and Mares, Edwin 2007. Realism and Anti-Realism. Stocksfield: Acumen.Google Scholar
Burgess, John, and Rosen, Gideon 1997. A Subject with No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, John, and Rosen, Gideon 2005. Nominalism reconsidered. In Shapiro, Stewart (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic. New York: Oxford University Press: 515–535.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf 1950. Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Reprinted in his Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956 ed.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan 1985. An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Divers, John, and Hagen, Jason 2006. The modal fictionalist predicament. In Fraser, MacBride (ed.) Identity and Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorr, Cian 2005. What we disagree about when we disagree about ontology. In Kalderon, Mark (ed.) Fictionalism in Metaphyics. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 234–286.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit 2001. The question of realism. Philosophers' Imprint 1. URL = <www.philosophersimprint.org/001001>' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fine,+Kit2001.+The+question+of+realism.+Philosophers'+Imprint+1.+URL+=+>Google Scholar
Grice, Paul 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Eli 1993. Peter van Inwagen's Material Beings. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53: 687–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Eli 2002. Against revisionary ontology. Philosophical Topics 30:103–127.Google Scholar
Hofweber, Thomas 2005. A puzzle about ontology. Noûs 39: 256–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hossack, Keith 2000. Plurals and complexes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51: 411–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liggins, David 2008. Modal fictionalism and possible-worlds discourse. Philosophical Studies 138: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liggins, David MS. Metaontology and paraphrase.Google Scholar
McGrath, Matthew 2005. No objects, no problem? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83: 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Penelope 1993. Ordinary language and metaphysical commitment. Analysis 53: 243–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markosian, Ned 1998. Brutal composition. Philosophical Studies 92: 211–249.Google Scholar
Merricks, Trenton 2001. Objects and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Morton, Adam 1975. Complex individuals and multigrade relations. Noûs 9: 309–318.Google Scholar
Noonan, Harold 1994. In defence of the letter of fictionalism. Analysis 54: 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary-Hawthorne, John and Michael, Michaelis 1996. Compatibilist semantics in metaphysics: a case study. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Alex and Smiley, Timothy 2001. Strategies for a logic of plurals. Philosophical Quarterly 51: 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Alex and Smiley, Timothy 2004. Multigrade predicates. Mind 113: 609–681.Google Scholar
Olson, Eric 1998. Human atoms. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76: 396–406.Google Scholar
Rea, Michael C. 1997. Material Constitution: A Reader. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon 1993. A problem for fictionalism about possible worlds. Analysis 53: 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart 2000. Thinking about Mathematics: The Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Theodore 1993. Van Inwagen and the possibility of gunk. Analysis 53: 285–89.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Szabó, Zoltán Gendler 1999. Review of Burgess and Rosen 1997. Philosophical Review 108: 106–109.Google Scholar
Uzquiano, Gabriel 2004. Plurals and simples. The Monist 87: 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter 1993. Reply to reviewers. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53: 709–719.Google Scholar
Van Inwagen, Peter 1998. Meta-ontology. Erkenntnis 48: 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, Richard (forthcoming). Why modal fictionalism is not self-defeating. Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar