Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mariana Battistini Dalmolin.pdf: 713395 bytes, checksum: 70d562c24a86d270ac99faa7f6717490 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-05-11 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / This work is a study on the theory of laws of nature proposed by the Australian philosopher D. M. Armstrong in his work What is a Law of Nature?, published in 1983. In that text, Armstrong shows the insufficiency of the regularty theory and, then, proceeds to develop his own theory, which is able to answer to several of the regularity theory's outstanding issues. In the first chapter of this work, we present (1.1) the naive regularity theory, as well as the critiques that it received from Armstrong and other authors. Afterwards (1.2), we present three suggestions to sophisticate that theory, which are not successful to address the difficulties found in its naive version. Therefore, the regularity theory is refuted, and a new theory of laws is needed. In the second chapter, we present, firstly (2.1), an assumption of Armstrong's theory of laws his realism about universals , and we see how it can be applied to a theory of laws. Afterwards (2.2), we present Armstrong's fundamental thesis: a law is a relation between universals and simultaneously an universal in itself, which regulates the behavior of particulars and generates uniformities in nature in virtue of the instaniation relation. We also show (2.3) how such theory makes it possible to deal with the difficulties faced by the regularity theory. In the third chapter, we evaluate the role of the concept of necessity in Armstrong's theory. Firstly (3.1), we deepen our understanding of the necessitation relation N, and, afterwards (3.2), we show that Armstrong rejects the thesis according to which laws are metaphisically necessary and advocates for their contingency. Therefore, the understanding of his theory is centered in the distinction between the nomic necessity asserted in his conception of laws, on one hand, and the metaphysic necessity of laws, which Armstrong denies, on the other / Este trabalho é um estudo sobre a teoria de leis da natureza proposta pelo filósofo australiano D. M. Armstrong em sua obra What is a Law of Nature?, publicada em 1983. Neste texto, Armstrong mostra a insuficiência da teoria regularista de leis e procede, então, a desenvolver sua própria teoria, que se mostra capaz de resolver diversos problemas que a teoria regularista deixava em aberto. No primeiro capítulo deste trabalho, apresentamos (1.1) a teoria regularista ingênua, bem como as críticas que ela recebeu de Armstrong e de outros autores. Em seguida (1.2), mostramos que três propostas de sofisticação da teoria não são bem-sucedidas para resolver as dificuldades encontradas na versão ingênua. A teoria regularista fica, assim, refutada, e uma nova teoria sobre leis é necessária. No segundo capítulo, apresentamos, primeiramente (2.1), um pressuposto à teoria de leis de Armstrong seu realismo sobre universais , e vemos como este pode ser aplicado a uma teoria de leis. A seguir (2.2), apresentamos a tese fundamental de Armstrong: uma lei é uma relação entre universais e, simultaneamente, um universal em si mesma que, devido à relação de instanciação, regula o comportamento de particulares e gera uniformidades na natureza. Mostramos, também, (2.3) como tal teoria permite dar conta das dificuldades enfrentadas pela teoria regularista. No terceiro capítulo, avaliamos o papel do conceito de necessidade na teoria de Armstrong. Em primeiro lugar (3.1), aprofundamos nosso entendimento da relação de necessitação N, que tem um papel central na teoria apresentada, e, a seguir (3.2), mostramos que Armstrong rejeita a tese de que leis são metafisicamente necessárias, defendendo sua contingência. O entendimento de sua teoria está centrado, portanto, na distinção entre a necessidade nômica afirmada em sua concepção de leis, por um lado, e a necessidade metafísica das leis, que Armstrong rejeita

According to natural class trope nominalism, properties are natural classes of tropes, where the "naturalness" of natural classes is taken to be primitive and unanalyzable. In this thesis I defend natural class trope nominalism from two objections: i) that the naturalness of natural classes is analyzable, and ii) that natural class trope nominalism cannot account for certain modal facts (namely, that there could have been more or fewer tropes of any given type), an objection raised by Nicolas Wolterstorff. I defend natural class trope nominalism from (i) indirectly by presenting several putative analyses (namely, those of D. M. Armstrong, Keith Campbell, and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereya) of natural classes and arguing that they are all deficient, thereby undermining the claim that natural classes are analyzable. Douglas Ehring has recently defended natural class trope nominalism from (ii) by developing a counterpart theory for types of tropes. However, counterpart theory is not universally accepted. So I present three non-counterpart-theoretic alternatives. The natural class trope nominalist can meet Wolterstorff's objection a) by positing existent, but uninstantiated, tropes, b) by accepting modal realism, and c) by accepting a thesis called 'transworld property exemplification'. / October 2005

According to natural class trope nominalism, properties are natural classes of tropes, where the "naturalness" of natural classes is taken to be primitive and unanalyzable. In this thesis I defend natural class trope nominalism from two objections: i) that the naturalness of natural classes is analyzable, and ii) that natural class trope nominalism cannot account for certain modal facts (namely, that there could have been more or fewer tropes of any given type), an objection raised by Nicolas Wolterstorff. I defend natural class trope nominalism from (i) indirectly by presenting several putative analyses (namely, those of D. M. Armstrong, Keith Campbell, and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereya) of natural classes and arguing that they are all deficient, thereby undermining the claim that natural classes are analyzable. Douglas Ehring has recently defended natural class trope nominalism from (ii) by developing a counterpart theory for types of tropes. However, counterpart theory is not universally accepted. So I present three non-counterpart-theoretic alternatives. The natural class trope nominalist can meet Wolterstorff's objection a) by positing existent, but uninstantiated, tropes, b) by accepting modal realism, and c) by accepting a thesis called 'transworld property exemplification'.

According to natural class trope nominalism, properties are natural classes of tropes, where the "naturalness" of natural classes is taken to be primitive and unanalyzable. In this thesis I defend natural class trope nominalism from two objections: i) that the naturalness of natural classes is analyzable, and ii) that natural class trope nominalism cannot account for certain modal facts (namely, that there could have been more or fewer tropes of any given type), an objection raised by Nicolas Wolterstorff. I defend natural class trope nominalism from (i) indirectly by presenting several putative analyses (namely, those of D. M. Armstrong, Keith Campbell, and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereya) of natural classes and arguing that they are all deficient, thereby undermining the claim that natural classes are analyzable. Douglas Ehring has recently defended natural class trope nominalism from (ii) by developing a counterpart theory for types of tropes. However, counterpart theory is not universally accepted. So I present three non-counterpart-theoretic alternatives. The natural class trope nominalist can meet Wolterstorff's objection a) by positing existent, but uninstantiated, tropes, b) by accepting modal realism, and c) by accepting a thesis called 'transworld property exemplification'.