Della Rocca’s Relations Regress and Bradley’s Relations Regresses

Kevin Morris
{"title":"Della Rocca’s Relations Regress and Bradley’s Relations Regresses","authors":"Kevin Morris","doi":"10.1007/s12136-023-00578-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In his recent <i>The Parmenidean Ascent</i>, Michael Della Rocca develops a regress-theoretic case, reminiscent of F. H. Bradley’s famous argument in <i>Appearance and Reality</i>, against the intelligibility of relations and in favor of a monistic conception of reality. I argue that Della Rocca illicitly supposes that “internal” relations — in one sense of that word — lead to a “chain” regress, a regress of relations relating relations and relata. In contrast, I contend that if “internal” or grounded relations lead to a regress at all, it is a kind of “fission” regress within the relata themselves, and that a chain regress for relations only arises, if at all, for so-called “external” relations, relations not grounded in their relata. In this way, I contend that Della Rocca pursues a regress for so-called “internal” or grounded relations that only arise, if at all, for so-called “external” relations, relations not grounded in their relata. I compare Della Rocca’s case against relations with Bradley’s reasoning in <i>Appearance and Reality</i> and suggest in this context that Bradley may, perhaps, have the upper hand.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44390,"journal":{"name":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-023-00578-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In his recent The Parmenidean Ascent, Michael Della Rocca develops a regress-theoretic case, reminiscent of F. H. Bradley’s famous argument in Appearance and Reality, against the intelligibility of relations and in favor of a monistic conception of reality. I argue that Della Rocca illicitly supposes that “internal” relations — in one sense of that word — lead to a “chain” regress, a regress of relations relating relations and relata. In contrast, I contend that if “internal” or grounded relations lead to a regress at all, it is a kind of “fission” regress within the relata themselves, and that a chain regress for relations only arises, if at all, for so-called “external” relations, relations not grounded in their relata. In this way, I contend that Della Rocca pursues a regress for so-called “internal” or grounded relations that only arise, if at all, for so-called “external” relations, relations not grounded in their relata. I compare Della Rocca’s case against relations with Bradley’s reasoning in Appearance and Reality and suggest in this context that Bradley may, perhaps, have the upper hand.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德拉罗卡的关系回归和布拉德利的关系回归
迈克尔-德拉-罗卡在他最近出版的《帕门尼德的上升》中,提出了一个回归理论的案例,让人想起弗-H-布拉德利在《表象与现实》中的著名论证,反对关系的可理解性,支持现实的一元论概念。我认为,德拉-罗卡非法地假定 "内部 "关系--在这个词的一种意义上--会导致 "链式 "倒退,即关系与关系之间的倒退。与此相反,我认为,如果 "内部 "关系或基础关系导致倒退的话,那也是一种在关系本身内部的 "裂变 "倒退,而关系的链式倒退只出现在所谓的 "外部 "关系中,即不在其关系中的关系。因此,我认为德拉-罗卡追求的是所谓 "内部 "关系或基础关系的回归,而这种回归只有在所谓 "外部 "关系中才会出现(如果有的话),这种关系不是建立在它们的关系中的。我将德拉-罗卡反对关系的论证与布拉德利在《表象与现实》中的推理进行了比较,并就此提出布拉德利或许占了上风。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Acta Analytica is an international journal for philosophy in the analytical tradition covering a variety of philosophical topics including philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Special attention is devoted to cognitive science. The journal aims to promote a rigorous, argument-based approach in philosophy. Acta Analytica is a peer reviewed journal, published quarterly, with authors from all over the world.
期刊最新文献
Existence Is Not Relativistically Invariant—Part 1: Meta-ontology Dead Past, Ad hocness, and Zombies Unfamiliarity in Logic? How to Unravel McSweeney’s Dilemma for Logical Realism On Wittgenstein’s Dispensation with “ = ” in the Tractatus and its Philosophical Background. A Critical Study Ficta and Amorphism: a Proposal for a Theory of Fictional Entities
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1