Belief systems of human societies are deeply related with animals, which are symbolised in traditional narratives. Here we review reported cases from around the world and our own ethnographic observations from southern Chile, to analyse beliefs associated with owls. In particular, we explore the role that owls play in traditional narratives and the likely reasons of their saliency, including their connections with the extraordinary. For the latter, we utilise the concept of “the uncanny” to analyse how owls generate a feeling (...) of something not simply mysterious but, more specifically, something strangely familiar. Owls trigger unsettling experiences of the “normal,” with the ensuing feelings of unhomeliness, which may explain their saliency across human societies. Finally, we discuss that the uncanny nature of owls is precisely what locates them in a culturally stimulating position and what should be considered by conservationists and politicians to tackle a more integrative approach to owl conservation. (shrink)

Putnam's Model- Theoretic Argument has been generally held as invalid. In this work, attention is addressed to two broad facts understated by critics and commentators: (i) there are, at least, two different model-theoretic arguments. One is directed against realism and the other is directed to naturalistic semantics. The general rejection affects the former, but it is open to discussion if it affects the latter; (ii) on the other hand, the model-theoretic argument construed as a reductio argument has not - prima (...) facia - ontological consequences, but only restrains our methodology to deal with the intentional realm. (shrink)

Se ha sostenido tradicionalmente que los predicados atribuidos a Dios y a las criaturas son análogos. Pero, ¿qué es la analogía? Varios filósofos han pensado que la analogía debe ser considerada como una forma de ambigüedad. Argumentamos aquí que los predicados atribuidos a Dios y a las criaturas no son ambiguos o vagos. Siguiendo algunas sugerencias de McDaniel, proponemos una concepción de la analogía donde el fenómeno semántico está asociado con el carácter más o menos natural de la propiedad o (...) propiedades que instancian las entidades que satisfacen el predicado análogo. Un predicado "θ" es análogo si y sólo si, la propiedad Θ, que algo instancia, si y sólo si es θ, es menos natural que cualquier propiedad Ξ tal que todo lo que instancie Ξ, instancia Θ. Además, se requiere que las entidades de las cuales el término análogo es predicado deban ser ontológica o epistémicamente dependientes unas de otras. || It has been traditionally sustained that predicates attributed to God and to the creatures are analogical predicates. But, what is analogy? Several philosophers have thought that analogy should be taken as a form of ambiguity. Here we argue that predicates attributed to God and to creatures are neither ambiguous nor vague. Following some suggestions given by McDaniel, we propose a view of analogy in which the semantic phenomenon is associated with the more or less natural character of the property or properties that the entities that satisfy the analogous predicate instantiate. A predicate "θ" is analogous if and only if the property Θ, which something instantiates, if and only if it is θ, is less natural that any property Ξ so that anything that instantiates Ξ, instantiates Θ. Furthermore, it is required that the entities of which the analogous term is predicated should be either ontologically or epistemically dependent on each other. (shrink)

Traditionally, it has been supposed that the central object of Biology are ‘organisms’. The expression “organism” is relatively recent in the use that it has nowadays –it was introduced by the authors of the German Idealism– but corresponds to a very traditional notion. An ‘organism’ is a substance composed by a plurality of materials organized by the same substance that acts upon itself to persist in time, in order to a finality that is the organism itself. To make intelligible an (...) organism seems indispensable its order to an end. This teleological perspective, nevertheless, is unacceptable for the reductivist perspective of Biology, prevalent since the triumph of what has been called the “Modern Synthesis” the first half of last century. It has been proposed, for that reason, to substitute the traditional idea of ‘organism’ by that of ‘Darwinian individual’ (cf. Godfrey-Smith, 2009), that could offer a more adequate perspective of the object of Biology. The object of this science could not be organisms, but individuals that can enter the Darwinian evolutionary drift. In this work it is explained why a hiatus persists between organisms teleologically oriented and a Darwinian individual. The Darwinian perspective leaves aside the central character of the object of Biology: life. (shrink)

The work presents the concept of a structural universal and the criticisms that have been leveled against it. A structural universal is a property had by an individual due to the nature of its proper parts and due to the relations obtaining between those parts. Mellor has argued that there is no reason to accept such universal in addition to the basic universals that compose them. David Lewis has argued –on the other hand– that it has not been satisfactorily explained (...) how universals are composed by other universals. The composition by which a structural universal is given cannot be a set-theoretical construction or a mereological sum. Several proposals to explain the nature of structural universals are discussed. Finally it is argued that a structural universal should be understood as a complexion of higher-order universals. (shrink)

Douglas Ehring (2011) has proposed a conception of natural classes of tropes to fulfill the roles usually attributed to universals. Natural classes of tropes can avoid the difficulties that affect the classic theory of tropes – as claimed by D. C. Williams and Keith Campbell – where tropes are simple and, by themselves, are particulars and have an intrinsic nature. Natural classes of tropes are also preferable to primitive resemblance classes of tropes, because they can explain the characteristics of the (...) relation of resemblance and can also ground an internal relation of resemblance between tropes. It is contended here that the conception proposed works very differently whether tropes are conceived as modifier tropes or as module tropes. In the first case, tropes cannot be grouped directly in natural classes, because tropes have no intrinsic character. They ground the character possessed by their bearer, but they themselves have none. So, the character attributed to a trope due to its belonging to a natural class is dependent, on its turn, on the natural classes or the resemblance classes into which the objects that bear those tropes enter. In the second case, tropes do have a character. Then, they can enter ‘directly’ into natural classes. The problem in this case, though, is that tropes seem to have many different characters and seem vulnerable to the traditional problems of the ‘imperfect community’ and the ‘company’ that affect resemblance nominalism. Keywords: properties, tropes, natural classes, resemblance classes, problem of the imperfect community, problem of the company. (shrink)

un estado de cosas es una estructura no-mereológica compuesta por universales, objetos y tiempos. En principio, un estado de cosas no está fundado en sus componentes, pues tales componentes podrían existir, pero no el estado de cosas que componen. La introducción de otras relaciones de 'instanciación' no mejoran la situación, si tales relaciones son universales. Un estado de cosas, sin embargo, sí está fundado en un universal, uno o varios objetos, un tiempo y un tropo que, esencialmente, es la instanciación (...) de tal universal en tal objeto, o en tales objetos, en tal tiempo. Si los estados de cosas están fundados en sus constituyentes, entonces hay una razón para admitir tropos. Finalmente, se discuten varias razones por los que los estados de cosas deben estar fundados. a state of affairs is a non-mereological structure composed by universals, objects and times. In principle, a state of affairs is not grounded in its components, for those components could exist, but not the state of affairs that they compose. The introduction of other relations of 'instantiation' doesn't improve the situation, if those relations are universal. A state of affairs, though, is grounded on a universal, object or objects, time and a trope that, essentially, is the instantiation of that universal in that object, or in those objects, in that time. If states of affairs are grounded in their constituents, then there is reason to admit tropes. Finally, several reasons by which states of affairs should be grounded are discussed. (shrink)

Hilary Putnam's doctrine of conceptual relativity sustains that there are many different incompatible, yet equivalent, descriptions of what have to be considered "the same" phenomena. This fact is reason to justify the idea that metaphysical realism is wrong and that a better general view of reality should be something like a "pragmatic realism." Putnam sustains further that the different incompatible and equivalent descriptions have to bear the same explanatory virtue. Here it is contended that there seems to be difficulties in (...) construing this requirement in a non-question begging way in an argument designed to show that metaphysical realism should be dismissed. Different descriptions can only be deemed to have the same explanative virtue if our knowledge of, for example, structures in the natural world, seems to be simply a form to "save the phenomena," but this is a characteristic anti-realist thesis that should not be taken for granted in the dialectical setting. (shrink)

Claims about reduction or emergence appear in cases in which there are different levels of facts that have between them some kind of ontological connection by which one of them is ‘made up’ from the other. In the case of reduction, it is supposed that the reduced level of facts is ‘nothing over’ the reducing level of facts. In the case of emergence, on the other hand, it is supposed that the emergent level is something ‘new’ with respect to the (...) emergence base. In both reduction and emergence some kind of ontological priority of one level with respect to the other is involved, as well as some kind of explanatory asymmetry between them. In recent years a lot of work has been devoted to different notions of ontological priority, like grounding and dependence, that might be useful for the clarification of the more traditional questions about the nature of reduction and emergence. This work presents and discusses various attempts to make that clarification. Keywords: reduction, emergence, grounding, dependence, levels of reality. (shrink)

RESUMEN Trabajos recientes han propuesto un tratamiento de la fundación “a la imagen de la causalidad”. Hay importantes analogías entre la fundación y la causalidad: ambas parecen ser relaciones de ‘construcción’, ambas parecen ser órdenes estrictos y ambas parecen ser representables por modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. Pero también parece que hay importantes diferencias, porque la causalidad es usualmente considerada como una relación externa, mientras que la fundación es interna; hay casos de causalidad probabilística, pero no hay nada como una fundación (...) probabilística; la fundación se considera una relación ‘bien fundada’, pero no la causalidad; la fundación implica superveniencia ontológica, pero no la causalidad. Se argumenta aquí que la mayoría de estas supuestas diferencias están motivadas por una concepción humeana de la causalidad en la que no hay conexiones necesarias entre causa y efecto. Una perspectiva no humeana de la causalidad, sin embargo, hace que la unificación de la fundación y la causalidad sea mucho más razonable que cualquier tratamiento separado. ABSTRACT Recent works have proposed a treatment of grounding “in the image of causation”. There are important analogies between grounding and causation: both seem to be ‘building’ relations, both seem to be strict orders, and both seem amenable to representation by models of structural equations. But it seems also that there are important differences, because causation is usually considered as an external relation, while grounding is internal; there are cases of probabilistic causation, but there is nothing like probabilistic grounding; grounding is taken to be a well-founded relation, but not causation; grounding entails ontological supervenience, but not causation. It is argued here that most of those supposed differences are motivated by a Humean conception of causation in which there are no necessary connections between cause and effect. A non-Humean view of causation, though, makes the unification of grounding and causation much more reasonable that any separate treatment. (shrink)

El trabajo presenta una concepción causal de la modalidad metafísica en la que un estado de cosas es metafísicamente posible si y sólo si podría ser causado (en el pasado, el presente o el futuro) por entidades actuales. La concepción es contrastada con lo que se llama la concepción "combinatoria" d..

Ha sido uno de los alegatos centrales de la teoría así llamada “cognitiva” de las proposiciones que su carácter representacional —y, con ello, sus condiciones de verdad— es derivativo del carácter representacional primitivo de los actos cognitivos concretos por los que un agente predica una propiedad de un objeto. Las proposiciones heredan su carácter representacional porque son ‘tipos’ de actos cognitivos particulares que poseen el ‘mismo’ contenido representacional. Se argumenta en este trabajo que esta suposición está en conflicto con el (...) hecho de que actos cognitivos concretos son instancias de ciertos tipos. Bajo la mayoría de las concepciones acerca de lo que funda el hecho de que una pluralidad de objetos comparte la ‘misma’ naturaleza —i. e., acerca de cómo son algo ‘uno’ en lo múltiple— el carácter cualitativo de un objeto está fundado en universales o en alguna otra construcción aceptable para el nominalista. (shrink)

Este trabajo presenta y discute varias formas de especificar el espacio ontológicomodal, asumiendo que los mundos posibles son universales estructuralesmáximos y asumiendo también que no hay forma de representar medianteuniversales estructurales los hechos sobre identidad y diferencia deobjetos entre diferentes mundos posibles. Dos grandes opciones teoréticasdeterminan la configuración que podría tener el espacio modal: (a) la introducciónde haecceitates de individuos actuales como componentes de losuniversales estructurales máximos, y (b) la introducción de contrapartidas.En el caso (a), los hechos sobre identidad de (...) objetos meramente posibles endiferentes mundos queda indeterminada. Se argumenta que no es razonablesuplementar esta configuración del espacio modal con contrapartidas. En elcaso de que las haecceitates no sean introducidas, todos los hechos sobreidentidad y diferencia de objetos entre diferentes mundos posibles quedanindeterminados, por lo que aquí el suplemento de contrapartidas es bienvenido.Cada una de estas opciones tiene sus propios costos teóricos en relacióncon, por ejemplo, las relaciones de accesibilidad entre mundos posiblesy otras tesis modales cruciales. (shrink)

Este trabajo presenta el agnosticismo modal como un nuevo programa en metafísica modal. El agnóstico modal sólo cree en la existencia del mundo actual y de ningún otro. Preserva, sin embargo, la semántica realista para los enunciados modales y los análisis propuestos por el realista para los conceptos modales. Si se concede al agnóstico modal conocimiento sobre: hechos lógicos, hechos semánticos y hechos sobre el mundo actual, puede replicar gran parte de las capacidades de aseveración de enunciados modales del realista. (...) Aquí se argumenta que el conocimiento lógico parece ser —al menos prima facie— una forma de conocimiento modal. Es razonable, entonces, suponer que el conocimiento alegado por el agnóstico es también conocimiento de posibilidades. El agnosticismo modal es una posición que parece inestable entre una forma de realismo modal, o una forma de agnosticismo radical no muy verosímil. (shrink)

In this work three recent proposal of analysis of the concept of ‘religion’ are discussed. There is a strong convergence between these three proposals in several points: all of them maintain that a religion should be the belief of something –a set of propositions, the object of a propositional attitude like a belief–, all of them maintain that the object of the belief should be a theory about the good, and all of them maintain that a religion should have important (...) normative and practical consequences. It is argued here that there are at least two problems with the general conception that results from these analyses. In the first place, attributing to a religion the conditions of identity of an act of belief leads to absurd consequences. In the second place, it seems much better to analyze a religion as a theory about God or some gods. (shrink)

In this work it is proposed that the conditions of identity for biological organisms are given by the following principle: for all organisms x and y, x = y if and only if x has been caused by the self-preserving activity of y. This principle determines both the inter-temporal identity of organisms and the identity of organism in different possible worlds. It unifies what can be supposed about conditions of identity coming from —at least— three different conceptions about the nature (...) of biological organisms, those of RobertWilson, Thomas Pradeu and Ellen Clarke. These conceptions are presented and compared. (shrink)

Varios filósofos han propuesto un enfoque “algebraico” de los universales de acuerdo con el cual hay operaciones de universales a universales. No es obvio, sin embargo, cómo estas operaciones deban ser interpretadas y qué impacto tengan para las condiciones de identidad de los universales. Hay dos interpretaciones principales del álgebra de universales. Por una parte, se ha interpretado como formas de “construir” universales complejos. Por otra, ha sido interpretada como “morfismos” o “mapeos” entre universales, pero no como algo que “construye” (...) universales complejos desde otros más básicos. En este trabajo se evalúan las ventajas comparativas de las dos concepciones, y se ofrecen razones para preferir la segunda. (shrink)

It is argued that instantiation, i.e. the relation between particular objects and properties (conceived as universals or tropes) is indeed an ontologically robust relation. The relation of instantiation is required to explain the difference between a state of affairs of, for example, a being F, and the mereological fusion [ a + F]. If instantiation is a true relation, then Bradley’s Regress ensues. It is argued, nevertheless, that the regress cannot be taken as a reason to reject the existence of (...) instantiation or to reject the existence of properties as entities numerically different from particular objects to which the properties should be related. All the nominalist alternatives suffer from similar regresses. Bradley’s Regress should, therefore, be addressed head-on. After dismissing all the applicable ways in which an infinite regress may be deemed vicious, it is argued that Bradley’s Regress is — in a sense — harmless. (shrink)

Dummett’s Manifestation Argument against realism attempts to show that a realist conception of meaning cannot explain the understanding of truth-conditions transcendent to evidence. In this work the general structure of the argument is discussed along with several objections to it. This examination finds that the anti-realist is committed to a deflationary conception of the normative character of meaning that is unpalatable. This essay contends that the argument in its present form cannot have the metaphysical consequences it claims (at least not (...) without begging the question). (shrink)

This work presents and discusses the conception of instantiation as ‘partial identity’. The theory has been previously proposed in two different guises by Baxter and Armstrong . Attention will be paid mostly to Baxter’s presentation, which seems the best de veloped, and where instantiation is understood as identity of ‘aspects’ of a universal and a particular. The theory seems to offer a solution to the vexed question of Bradley’s Regress, because instantiation is no longer conceived as a relation between numerically (...) different entities. The proposed solution requires an ontology of ‘aspects’ in order to work. Aspects are presented in the form [ x insofar as j] where x is filled by the entity to which the aspect pertains and j is filled by the respect in which the entity in question is considered. Aspects are numerically identical with the entity to which they pertain and with the other aspects of the same entity. Aspects, nonetheless, are not mere ways in which one can conceive an entity. Aspects are objective. Rejection of the principle of indiscernibility of identicals is crucial to this theory. The attributions of one aspect are not also attributions to the other aspects of the same entity. Hence, aspects offer ways to deal with seemingly incoherent attributions to the same entity. Baxter uses them to solve the problem of the multi-location of universals, temporary intrinsics and trans-world identity, besides the nature of instantiation. Several difficulties are presented, both to the general metaphysics of aspects, and to the conception of instantiation as identity of aspects. In general: it is not clear how to distinguish objective aspects from the mere forms in which we conceive an entity; it is not clear what are the conditions of identity of an aspect; and although the necessity of identity is rejected in general, it reappears as necessity of ‘aspectual’ identity. The necessity of aspectual identity raises concerns about the stability of the view. In respect to the specific conception of instantiation as identity of aspects, it will be pointed out that the theory implies the complete identity of universals and particulars that instantiate them and, further, that it implies the identity of everything with everything. (shrink)

[EN] Several conceptions of trope bundles have postulated mutual relations of ontological dependence to explain the unity of the bundle. The idea is that a bundle is a plurality of tropes such that each one of them is dependent on any other. A variant of this idea is that there is a ‘nucleus’ of tropes all of them mutually dependent, and there is also a ‘periphery’ or ‘halo’ of tropes that are dependent on the tropes of the nucleus, but the (...) tropes of the nucleus are not dependent on them. There are several theoretical advantages that trope bundles conceived in this way have. A weakness of the position nevertheless is that it requires an equivalence relation of dependence. But it has been normally supposed that dependence is a strict order, i.e. it is relation irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Several recent works have put into question this traditional assumption. Those recent criticisms are discussed and it is argued that they are not convincing. Further arguments are presented for the irreflexivity and transitivity of dependence, from which asymmetry follows. Dependence, then, appears to be in fact a strict order. This implies that most forms of nuclear trope bundles are unintelligible. But not all of them, because nuclear tropes with a unique nuclear trope are coherent. [ES] Varias concepciones de cúmulos de tropos han postulado relaciones de dependencia ontológica mutuas para explicar la unidad del cúmulo. La idea es que un cúmulo es una pluralidad de tropos tal que cada uno de ellos es dependiente de cualquier otro. Una variante de esta idea es que hay un ‘núcleo’ de tropos todos ellos mutuamente dependientes y hay también una ‘periferia’ o ‘halo’ de tropos que son dependientes de los tropos del núcleo, pero los tropos del núcleo no son dependientes de ellos. Hay varias ventajas teóricas que tienen los cúmulos de tropos concebidos de este modo. Una debilidad de esta posición, sin embargo, es que requiere una relación de dependencia que sea una relación de equivalencia. Pero se ha supuesto normalmente que la dependencia es un orden estricto, esto es, una relación irreflexiva, asimétrica y transitiva. Varios trabajos recientes han puesto en cuestión este supuesto tradicional. Estas criticas recientes son aquí discutidas y se argumenta que no son convincentes. Se presentan argumentos adicionales para la irreflexividad y la transitividad de la dependencia, de lo que se sigue la asimetría. Entonces, la dependencia resulta ser un orden estricto. Esto implica que la mayoría de las formas de cúmulos nucleares de tropos son ininteligibles. Pero no todos, porque los cúmulos nucleares con un único tropo nuclear son coherentes. (shrink)

Alonso Briceño, el primer filósofo chileno, sostuvo que, para todo x, el ser de x = la haecceitas de x y –además– que hay una distinción ‘formal’ entre el ser de x y la esencia de x. En general, hay una distinción ‘formal’ entre los ítems z y v si y solo si: (i) z  v, y (ii) z y v son mutuamente inseparables. Se sigue de estas tesis que el ‘ser’ debe tomarse como un componente ontológico específico en (...) los objetos particulares y que es idéntico con la haecceitas del objeto. Esto se denomina aquí “la intuición de Briceño”. En este trabajo se considera la relevancia que la intuición de Briceño podría tener para dos de las teorías más importantes acerca de la naturaleza de los objetos particulares: las teorías en las que los objetos particulares están constituidos por un sustrato y sus propiedades, y las teorías en las que los objetos particulares son cúmulos de tropos. Se argumenta que en ambos casos la intuición de Briceño, esto es, la idea de que hay un tropo específico de ser en el objeto particular, trae consigo ventajas sistemáticas importantes y, lo que es más, permite la unificación teórica de ambas perspectivas, normalmente consideradas como incompatibles entre sí. (shrink)

En una serie de trabajos Carol Cleland ha argumentado por los últimos veinte años que la búsqueda de una definición de la vida es no solo inútil sino contraproducente. Una definición en términos de condiciones necesarias y suficientes nos podría cegar para la tarea mucho más importante de desarrollar una teoría universal de la vida. La principal justificación para este alegato es que la vida es una clase natural. Términos para clases naturales no poseen definiciones ideales, porque pretenden hacer referencia (...) a rasgos objetivos del mundo y no hacer explícito el contenido de nuestro pensamiento o lenguaje. Se argumenta aquí que la vida es, en efecto, una clase natural y, luego, la semántica para el término vida no puede darse por una definición ideal con condiciones necesarias y suficientes. Sin embargo, la semántica del término vida no excluye la posibilidad de hallar una ‘definición real’ adecuada de la esencia de la vida, esto es, de qué es la vida. Una definición real no es la enunciación del significado de un término sino de una esencia. (shrink)

Este trabajo discute qué razones tenemos para pensar que existe un espacio ontológico modal y por qué debemos pensar que este espacio está constituido por una pluralidad de mundos posibles. Después se presentan tres teorías metafísicas sobre la naturaleza de los mundos posibles: la concepción realista extrema de David Lewis, la concepción realista moderada de Alvin Plantinga y la concepción de los mundos posibles como universales estructurales máximos. Un breve examen comparativo tratará de mostrar por qué la tercea opción es (...) la más prometedora o, al menos, parece serlo. El trabajo finalmente considera el panorama que tiene por delante una defensa plenamente desarrollada de la teoría modal basada en universales. (shrink)

este trabajo considera la viabilidad de la teoría de los mundos posibles como universales estructurales máximos en relación con las conocidas críticas contra concepciones actualistas de los mundos posibles. En una primera parte se expone brevemente la teoría modal basada en universales. Luego se presentan las diferentes dificultades. Dos de éstas parecen especialmente relevantes para la teoría que aquí se defiende: (i) la confusión de posibilidades indiscernibles diferentes, y (ii) la explicación de la naturaleza de la representación de las posibilidades. (...) Luego de examinadas estas dificultades se muestra cómo la teoría modal basada en universales puede responder estos dos problemas. (shrink)

Este trabajo considera el programa de reducción de universales por clases de tropos semejantes. Diversas cuestiones surgen acerca de la relación de semejanza: ¿Presuponen los "respectos" de semejanza un universal? ¿Induce un regres vicioso el hecho de que la relación de semejanza sea una relación? Si hay diferentes respectos de comparación entre tropos, entonces hay espacio para las dificultades tradicionales contra el nominalismo de semejanza: la "comunidad imperfecta" y la "compañía". ¿Pueden ser manejados estos problemas con clases de tropos semejantes? (...) La relación de semejanza requerida es una "semejanza perfecta", esto es, una relación de semejanza transitiva, sin margen para grados y sin variación en los respectos de comparación entre tropos. ¿Hay clases de tropos exactamente semejantes? Después de consideradas estas cuestiones, parece que el defensor de los tropos tiene respuestas para las cuestiones, y, pero parece no haber respuestas plausibles para la cuestión. Las clases de semejanza perfecta que van a reemplazar a los universales deben ser clases de tropos posibles y no hay formas razonables de explicar los hechos modales requeridos para estos tropos.This work considers the program of reduction of universals by classes of resembling tropes. Several questions appear concerning the relation of resemblance: Does not the "respects" for resemblance presuppose a universal? Does not the fact that the relation of resemblance is a relation induce a vicious regress? If there are different respects of comparison between tropes, then there is space for the traditional difficulties against resemblance nominalism: the "imperfect community" and the "companionship" difficulties. Can these problems be handled by classes of tropes? The relation of resemblance required is "perfect resemblance", that is, a relation of resemblance transitive, with no margin for degrees, and with no variation in the respects of comparison between tropes. Are there any perfect resembling tropes? After consideration, it appears that the defender of tropes seems to have answers for the questions, and, but it seems that there are no plausible answers for the question. The classes of exact resemblance that are going to replace the universals should be classes of possible tropes and there are no reasonable ways of explaining the modal facts required for these tropes. (shrink)