Scholarlink

<p>Deshmukh and Janssen-Lauret (2024) (hereafter D&amp;J) show that origin essentialism, when combined with other metaphysical theses assumed by Kripke in <i>Naming and Necessity</i>, are together inconsistent with Hinduism. They also show that, given the way in which the seeming inconsistency arises, Hinduism, if there is an inconsistency, would be a counterexample to Kripke’s theory. I concur. But I argue that it is the auxiliary metaphysical theses, and not origin essentialism itself, that generates the inconsistency. I show that Leibniz’ philosophy shares with Hinduism the very feature that D&amp;J use to generate the apparent inconsistency. But Leibniz’ philosophy also entails origin essentialism. Even so it is jointly consistent with origin essentialism and the Hindu doctrines D&amp;J discuss. Furthermore, Hinduism and origin essentialism may be shown to be consistent even without auxiliary Leibnizian assumptions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Hinduism, Leibniz, and Origin Essentialism

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月24日

查看全文
  • Scott Hill

摘要

Deshmukh and Janssen-Lauret (2024) (hereafter D&J) show that origin essentialism, when combined with other metaphysical theses assumed by Kripke in Naming and Necessity, are together inconsistent with Hinduism. They also show that, given the way in which the seeming inconsistency arises, Hinduism, if there is an inconsistency, would be a counterexample to Kripke’s theory. I concur. But I argue that it is the auxiliary metaphysical theses, and not origin essentialism itself, that generates the inconsistency. I show that Leibniz’ philosophy shares with Hinduism the very feature that D&J use to generate the apparent inconsistency. But Leibniz’ philosophy also entails origin essentialism. Even so it is jointly consistent with origin essentialism and the Hindu doctrines D&J discuss. Furthermore, Hinduism and origin essentialism may be shown to be consistent even without auxiliary Leibnizian assumptions.