It's not the end of the world: when a subtraction argument for metaphysical nihilism fails

Analysis 71 (1):44-53 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Metaphysical nihilism is the thesis that there could have been no concrete objects. Thomas Baldwin (1996) offers an argument for metaphysical nihilism. The premisses of the argument purport to provide a procedure of subtraction that can be iterated until we reach a world where no concrete objects exist. Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (1997) finds fault with Baldwin’s argument, modifies it, and claims to have proved metaphysical nihilism. My primary aim is to show that Rodriguez-Pereyra’s alleged proof rests on a false assumption. The assumption is that, necessarily, if there are no concrete* objects (in the sense Rodriguez-Pereyra defines), then there are no concrete objects. My secondary aim, with which I begin, is to formulate and then strengthen a succinct version of the subtraction argument.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Subtractability and Concreteness.Ross P. Cameron - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):273 - 279.
Here Goes Nothing.Lee Barry - 2016 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 12 (1):27-45.
Here Goes Nothing.Barry Lee - 2016 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 12 (1):27-45.
The subtraction argument for the possibility of free mass.David Efird & Tom Stoneham - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (1):50-57.
Genuine modal realism and the empty world.David Efird & Tom Stoneham - 2005 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 1 (1):21-37.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-11-27

Downloads
43 (#110,248)

6 months
3 (#1,723,834)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Aviv Hoffmann
Hebrew University of Jerusalem