Single Idea 15437

[catalogued under 9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 1. Structure of an Object]

Full Idea

We can't dispense with structural universals if we cannot be sure that there are any simples which can be involved in them.

Gist of Idea

We can't get rid of structural universals if there are no simple universals


David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'Why believe')

Book Reference

Lewis,David: 'Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology' [CUP 1999], p.85

A Reaction

Lewis cites this as Armstrong's strongest reason for accepting structural universals (and he takes their requirement for an account of laws of nature as the weakest). I can't comprehend a world that lacks underlying simplicity.