Lowe's argument against nihilism

Analysis 60 (4):335-340 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

By nihilism I shall understand the thesis that it is metaphysically possible that there are no concrete objects. I think there is a version of an argu- ment, the subtraction argument, which proves nihilism nicely (see Baldwin 1996 and Rodriguez-Pereyra 1997). But E. J. Lowe, who is no nihilist, has a very interesting argument purporting to show that concrete objects exist necessarily (Lowe 1996, 1998). In this paper I shall defend nihilism from Lowe’s argument.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,098

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.Barry Lee - 2016 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 12 (1):27-45.
From nihilism to monism.Jonathan Schaffer - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (2):175 – 191.
Here Goes Nothing.Lee Barry - 2016 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 12 (1):27-45.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
154 (#127,145)

6 months
5 (#710,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time.E. J. Lowe - 1998 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.
There might be nothing.T. Baldwin - 1996 - Analysis 56 (4):231-238.
Why Is There Anything At All?E. J. Lowe - 1996 - Aristotelian Society Proceedings Supplement 70:111-120.

View all 7 references / Add more references