An Historical Sketch of Pluralism

Abstract

The controversy in American Philosophical Association between analysts and pluralists, a controversy initiated by so-called pluraliste, invites philosophers to explore meanings of pluralism in philosophy. Toward this public end I propose present modest sketch of history of pluralism. The figure of Aristotle looms large in my sketch of pluralism. Aristo tle's metaphysics centers primarily on reality of individual substances and secondarily on reality of essences. In Categories he declared: Substance, in truest and most definite sense of word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include species.1 Hence Aristotle provided ontological basis for metaphysical pluralism?for doctrine that ultimate realities, whatever else they are, are many. Aristotle also laid foundations for methodological pluralism. He proposed a model for natural sciences grounded on principles which are inductively arrived at but which subsequently serve as axioms in deductive syllogistic reasoning. Thus he wedded formal logic and empirical fact, and he was aware of plurality of empirical fields, genera, or subject-matters, each generating a different set of empirical premises and allowing varying degrees of precision. Moreover, it was alien to his way of thinking that language and logic could be divorced from questions of reference and truth. This is manifest in his formulation of laws of thought?in particular, in his articulation and defense of law of contradiction in Book IV, chapters 3 and 4 of Metaphysics. It may be worthwhile to quote at beginning law of contradiction as Aristotle formulated it: [T]he same attribute cannot at same time belong and not belong to same subject and in same respect.2 He deemed this law to be the most certain of principles,3 and we ought to be guided by it in our discussions. As Aristotle observed: [I]t is impossible for