PhilArchive
open access
Self-Relating Internalism: Reply to Vallicella
William Vallicella (2020) puts forward three arguments against self-relating internalism, my theory of the unity of states of affairs. His first objection is that there can be no constituent of a state of affairs with the required unifying power given the need for ‘ontological analysis’, or at least that such an entity is mysterious. His second objection is that self-relating internalism violates the principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals. His final objection is that my explanation of the unity of states of affairs is viciously circular. In this note, I argue that each of challenges can be met.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Triune Agápē as the Ground of Being#170366
- Against Grounding Trinitarianism#119409
- THE AUGURE: THE MAN OF DESTINY A Formal Theory of Vocation at Its Summit Gift-Domain Topology, the Dissolution Threshold, the Resonance Mechanism, and the Political Conditions for Men of Destiny#692472
- A Relational Cosmos Requires the Christian God#85218
- The Substance Illusion: A Multi-Front Refutation of Substance Ontology and the Case for Configurational Realism#727955
Record · ID 752686
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive