HAECCEITISM, ANTI-HAECCEITISM AND POSSIBLE WORLDS

Abstract

Possible-worlds talk obscures the debate about haecceitism, rather than clarifying it. I distinguish haecceitism and anti-haecceitism from other doctrines which sometimes go under those names. Then I defend the claim that any definition of ‘haecceitism’ using possible-worlds talk depends for its correctness on a substantive theory of the nature of possible worlds. This explains why using possible-worlds talk when discussing haecceitism causes confusion: the term will mean different things to parties who depend on different presuppositions about possible worlds.