What does Plato mean in saying that, for all forms, “F-ness is F”? In such claims, I argue, ‘F’ is being used metonymically to refer to the property of being productive of F-ness rather than to the property of being F, in a way consistent with univocity and the rejection of a genuine Self-Predication Assumption. I explain and defend this productive metonymy reading and show how it can resolve the troubling argument at Phaedo 74b7-c6.

Se hace una revisión del uso e implicaciones de la expresión Ka fKaoTov en buena parte de la obra aristotélica -interesan de manera especial en este estudio los tratados que conforman el Organon, pero sin dejar de lado textos ontológicos, cosmológicos, éticos, políticos y biológicos del filósofo-. Dicha fórmula designa al individuo en la lógica discursiva del Estagirita, pero los modos en que se va comprendiendo no son completamente congruentes; así, se pasa de un singularismo, que supone una identidad única (...) e insustituible, por ende incognoscible por parte de la ciencia. a un particularismo, esto es, una visión desde una perspectiva universalista que convierte a los individuos en partícipes de condiciones comunes, con lo cual los problemas cognitivos se solventan, aunque la potencia de la individuación, que podría estar en su pretendida singularidad, queda suspendida. Es pretensión fundamental de este trabajo mostrar cómo en el aristotelismo hay una fuerte tendencia universalista como fórmula para solventar las aporías que surgen de la individuación, y que por ende es el formalismo, surgido en el platonismo sin duda, el que habrá de definir los modos por excelencia de acceso a lo real tangible. (shrink)

What is the Bare Particular Theory? Is it committed, like the Bundle Theory, to a constituent ontology: according to which a substance’s qualities—and according to the Bare Particular Theory, its substratum also—are proper parts of the substance? I argue that Bare Particularists need not, should not, and—if a recent objection to ‘the Bare Particular Theory’ succeeds—cannot endorse a constituent ontology. There is nothing, I show, in the motivations for Bare Particularism or the principles that distinguish Bare Particularism from rival views (...) that entails a constituent ontology. I outline a version of Bare Particularism that in rejecting a constituent ontology avoids the New Objection. I argue against Theodore Sider that this really is a distinct theory to the version of Bare Particularism that endorses a constituent ontology, and not a mere terminological variant. I show that this, the best version of the Bare Particular Theory, is also defensible against the old objections. (shrink)

The ‘traditional’ interpretation of the Receptacle in Plato’s Timaeus maintains that its parts act as substrata to ordinary particulars such as dogs and tables: particulars are form-matter compounds to which Forms supply properties and the Receptacle supplies a substratum, as well as a space in which these compounds come to be. I argue, against this view, that parts of the Receptacle cannot act as substrata for those particulars. I also argue, making use of contemporary discussions of supersubstantivalism, against a substratum (...) interpretation that separates substratum and space in the Timaeus. (shrink)

This paper provides a rational reconstruction of a Platonic trope bundle theory that is a live alternative to contemporary bundle theories. According to the theory, Platonic particulars are composed of what Plato calls images of Forms; contemporary metaphysicians call these tropes. Tropes are dependent on Forms and the Receptacle, while trope bundles are structured by natural kinds using the Phaedo's principles of inclusion and exclusion and the Timaeus’ geometrised elements, as well as by co-location in the Receptacle. Key elements of (...) discussion include persistence and abundance of Plato's tropes. The resulting theory is compared with contemporary trope bundle theories. (shrink)