Philosophical Review 104 (4):630 (1995)

Scott Shalkowski
University of Leeds
This study in fundamental ontology calls for rethinking some pedestrian assumptions about what there is and provides the motivation for a new theory of reference. It contains clear, crisp discussions of mereology, identity, reference, and necessity and should be valuable to metaphysicians and philosophers of language.
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0031-8108
DOI 10.2307/2185838
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,066
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

What is a Philosophical Analysis?Jeffrey C. King - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 90 (2):155-179.
The Hard Question for Hylomorphism.Dana Goswick - 2018 - Metaphysics 1 (1):52-62.
Persistence Egalitarianism.Irem Kurtsal - 2021 - Res Philosophica 98 (1):63-88.

View all 22 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reference and Modality.Leonard Linsky - 1971 - London: Oxford University Press.
A Point of Reference.Barry Richards - 1974 - Synthese 28 (3-4):361 - 454.
The Lord Scroop Fallacy.Herman E. Stark - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (3).
Beyond Modernity and Tradition: A Third Way for Development.Freya Mathews - 2006 - Ethics and the Environment 11 (2):85-113.


Added to PP index

Total views
51 ( #220,304 of 2,498,778 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #210,759 of 2,498,778 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes