Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:36:00.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Varieties of Instantiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2021

Abstract

Working with the assumption that properties depend for their instantiation on substances, I argue against a unitary analysis of instantiation. On the standard view, a property is instantiated just in case there is a substance that serves as the bearer of the property. But this view cannot make sense of how properties that are mind-dependent depend for their instantiation on minds. I consider two classes of properties that philosophers often take to be mind-dependent: sensible qualities like color and bodily sensations like itches. Given that the mind is never itself literally red or itchy, we cannot explain the instantiation of these qualities as a matter of their having a mental bearer. Appealing to insights from Berkeley, I defend a view on which a property can be instantiated not in virtue of having a bearer—mental or material—but rather in virtue of being the object of a conscious act of perception. In the second half of the paper, I suggest that the best account of sensible qualities and bodily sensations ultimately makes use of both varieties of instantiation.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Versions of this paper were presented at colloquium series at NYU and the CUNY Grad Center. I would like to thank the audiences at these events for helpful comments. I am deeply indebted to John Campbell, Mike Martin, and Hannah Ginsborg for extensive discussion of this material. I would also like to thank Austin Andrews, Adam Bradley, Jim Hutchinson, Alex Kerr, Berislav Marušić and two anonymous referees at The Journal of the American Philosophical Association for their comments. Finally, thanks to Peter Epstein for his unwavering support.

References

Ackrill, J. L. (1963) Aristotle: Categories and De Interpretatione. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allaire, Edwin. (1963) ‘Berkeley's idealism’. Theoria, 29, 229–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydede, Murat. (2006) ‘A Critical and Quasi-historical Essay on Theories of Pain’. In Aydede, Murat (ed.), Pain: New Essays on Its Nature and the Methodology of Its Study (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 159.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. (1948–57) ‘A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge’. In Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. (eds.), The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, vol. 2 (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons).Google Scholar
Berkeley, George. (1948–57) ‘Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous’. In Luce, A. A. and Jessop, T. (eds.), The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, vol. 2 (Thomas Nelson & Sons).Google Scholar
Block, Ned. (1996) ‘Mental Paint and Mental Latex’. Philosophical Issues, 7, 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, Paul A., and Velleman, J. David. (1989) ‘Colour as a Secondary Quality’. Mind, 98, 81103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, John, and Cassam, Qassim. (2014) Berkeley's Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David. (2006) ‘Perception and the Fall from Eden’. In Gendler, Tamar S. and Hawthorne, John (eds.), Perceptual Experience (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 49125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, Philip. (2007) ‘Perceiving and Berkeley's Theory of Substance’. In Daniel, Stephen H. (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 121–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, Rene. (1964–74) Oeuvres de Descartes, 12 vols. Edited by Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (1995) ‘Ontological Dependence’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. (1961) ‘The Causal Theory of Perception’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 35 (suppl.), 121–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Alan. (1984) ‘Adhering to Inherence: A New Look at the Old Steps in Berkeley's March to Idealism’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 14, 421–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank. (1977) Perception: A Representative Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koslicki, Kathryn. (2012) ‘Varieties of Ontological Dependence’. In Correia, Fabrice and Schnieder, Benjamin (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 186214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. (1963) The Works of John Locke. Darmstadt: Scientia Verlag.Google Scholar
Malebranche, Nicola. (1997) Elucidations of the Search After Truth. Translated by Lennon, T. M. and Olscamp, P. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marušić, Jennifer. (2018) ‘Berkeley on the Objects of Perception’. In Storrie, Stefan (ed.), Berkeley's Three Dialogues: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 4060.Google Scholar
Ott, Walter. (2006) ‘Descartes and Berkeley on Mind: The Fourth Distinction’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 14, 437–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, George. (1980) ‘Ideas, Minds, and Berkeley’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 17, 181–94.Google Scholar
Pautz, Adam. (2006) ‘Sensory Awareness is not a Wide Physical Relation: An Empirical argument Against Externalist Intentionalism’. Noûs, 40, 205–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pautz, Adam. (2009) ‘A Simple View of Consciousness’. In Koons, R. C. and Bealer, G. (eds.), The Waning of Materialism: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2566.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Chris. (1983) Sense and Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Ian. (2013) ‘Afterimages and Sensation’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87, 417–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sethi, Umrao. (2020) ‘Sensible Over-Determination’, Philosophical Quarterly, 70, 588616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sethi, Umrao. (Forthcoming) ‘Mind-Dependence in Berkeley and the Problem of Perception’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Soteriou, Matthew. (2013) The Mind's Construction: The Ontology of Mind and Mental Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Richard. (1963) ‘Berkeley in a Cartesian Context’. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 65, 381–94.Google Scholar