David Malet Armstrong

Last updated

David Malet Armstrong
David M. Armstrong receiving his doctorate of letters (h.c.) at Nottingham University, UK on 13 December 2007
Born(1926-07-08)8 July 1926
Melbourne, Australia
Died13 May 2014(2014-05-13) (aged 87)
Sydney, Australia
Alma mater University of Sydney
Era 20th-century philosophy
Region Western philosophy
School Analytic philosophy
Australian realism
Immanent realism [1]
Perdurantism (four-dimensionalism) [2]
Main interests
Metaphysics, philosophy of mind
Notable ideas
Instantiation principle
Quidditism [3]
Maximalist version of truthmaker theory

David Malet Armstrong (8 July 1926 – 13 May 2014), often D. M. Armstrong, was an Australian philosopher. He is well known for his work on metaphysics and the philosophy of mind, and for his defence of a factualist ontology, a functionalist theory of the mind, an externalist epistemology, and a necessitarian conception of the laws of nature. [4] He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2008. [5]

Australia Country in Oceania

Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. It is the largest country in Oceania and the world's sixth-largest country by total area. The neighbouring countries are Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor to the north; the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to the north-east; and New Zealand to the south-east. The population of 25 million is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated on the eastern seaboard. Australia's capital is Canberra, and its largest city is Sydney. The country's other major metropolitan areas are Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

Philosopher person with an extensive knowledge of philosophy

A philosopher is someone who practices philosophy, which involves rational inquiry into areas that are outside either theology or science. The term "philosopher" comes from the Ancient Greek, φιλόσοφος (philosophos), meaning "lover of wisdom". The coining of the term has been attributed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.

Metaphysics branch of philosophy

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between possibility and actuality. The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after or behind or among the [study of] the natural". It has been suggested that the term might have been coined by a first century CE editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle’s works into the treatise we now know by the name Metaphysics.


Keith Campbell said that Armstrong's contributions to metaphysics and epistemology "helped to shape philosophy's agenda and terms of debate", and that Armstrong's work "always concerned to elaborate and defend a philosophy which is ontically economical, synoptic, and compatibly continuous with established results in the natural sciences". [6]

Keith Campbell is an Australian philosopher working in metaphysics.

Life and career

After studying at the University of Sydney, Armstrong did a B.Phil at the University of Oxford and a Ph.D at the University of Melbourne. He taught at Birkbeck College in 1954–55, then at the University of Melbourne from 1956–63. In 1964, he became Challis Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney, where he stayed until his retirement in 1991. During his career, he was a visiting lecturer at a number of institutions including Yale, Stanford, the University of Notre Dame, the University of Texas at Austin and Franklin and Marshall College. [7]

University of Sydney university in Sydney, Australia

The University of Sydney is an Australian public research university in Sydney, Australia. Founded in 1850, it was Australia's first university and is regarded as one of the world's leading universities. The university is colloquially known as one of Australia's sandstone universities. Its campus is ranked in the top 10 of the world's most beautiful universities by the British Daily Telegraph and The Huffington Post, spreading across the inner-city suburbs of Camperdown and Darlington. The university comprises 9 faculties and university schools, through which it offers bachelor, master and doctoral degrees. In 2016 it had 28,873 undergraduate and 17,863 graduate students.

University of Oxford Collegiate research university in Oxford, England

The University of Oxford is a collegiate research university in Oxford, England. There is evidence of teaching as early as 1096, making it the oldest university in the English-speaking world and the world's second-oldest university in continuous operation. It grew rapidly from 1167 when Henry II banned English students from attending the University of Paris. After disputes between students and Oxford townsfolk in 1209, some academics fled north-east to Cambridge where they established what became the University of Cambridge. The two 'ancient universities' are frequently jointly called 'Oxbridge'. The history and influence of the University of Oxford has made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

University of Melbourne Australian public university located in Melbourne, Victoria

The University of Melbourne is a public research university located in Melbourne, Australia. Founded in 1853, it is Australia's second oldest university and the oldest in Victoria. Melbourne's main campus is located in Parkville, an inner suburb north of the Melbourne central business district, with several other campuses located across Victoria.

In 1974, when the University of Sydney's Philosophy department split into two departments [8] —the Department for General Philosophy and the Department for Traditional and Modern Philosophy—Armstrong joined the latter along with David Stove and Keith Campbell, while the former department pursued more radical politics and taught courses on Marxism and feminism. [9] The two departments were reunified in 2000. [10]

David Charles Stove, was an Australian philosopher.

Marxism economic and sociopolitical worldview based on the works of Karl Marx

Marxism is a theory and method of working class self-emancipation. As a theory, it relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social gender equality. This includes fighting gender stereotypes and seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

Armstrong married Jennifer Mary de Bohun Clark in 1982 and had step children. He previously married Madeleine Annette Haydon in 1950. [11] He also served in the Royal Australian Navy. [7]

Royal Australian Navy naval warfare branch of the Australian Defence Force

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) is the naval branch of the Australian Defence Force. Following the Federation of Australia in 1901, the ships and resources of the separate colonial navies were integrated into a national force, called the Commonwealth Naval Forces. Originally intended for local defence, the navy was granted the title of 'Royal Australian Navy' in 1911, and became increasingly responsible for defence of the region.

In 1950, Armstrong formed an Anti-Conscription Committee with David Stove and Eric Dowling, all three former students of John Anderson, the Australian philosopher, who supported conscription and also believed that anti-conscription opinions ought to be suppressed. [12]

Conscription in Australia, or mandatory military service also known as national service, has a controversial history dating back to the first years of nationhood. Australia currently only has provision for conscription during times of war.

Eric Perry Dowling was a British Royal Air Force navigator who participated in the World War II breakout known as "The Great Escape".

John Anderson (philosopher) Scottish-born Australian philosopher

John Anderson was a Scottish philosopher who occupied the post of Challis Professor of Philosophy at Sydney University from 1927 to 1958. He founded the empirical brand of philosophy known as Australian realism.

To mark the 50th anniversary in 2014 of Armstrong's appointment to the Challis Chair of Philosophy at Sydney University, Quadrant magazine published a tribute to him (originally written in 1991) by David Stove [13] and an overview of Armstrong's work by Andrew Irvine. [14] [15]


Armstrong's philosophy is broadly naturalistic. In Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics, Armstrong states that his philosophical system rests upon "the assumption that all that exists is the space time world, the physical world as we say". He justifies this by saying that the physical world "seems obviously to exist" while other things "seem much more hypothetical". From this fundamental assumption flows a rejection of abstract objects including Platonic forms. [16]

Armstrong's development as a philosopher was influenced heavily by John Anderson, David Lewis, and J. J. C. Smart, [17] as well as by Ullin Place, Herbert Feigl, Gilbert Ryle and G. E. Moore. [18] Armstrong collaborated with C. B. Martin on a collection of critical essays on John Locke and George Berkeley. [19]

Armstrong's philosophy, while systematic, does not spend any time on social or ethical matters, and also does not attempt to build a philosophy of language. He once described his slogan as 'Put semantics last' [11] and, in Universals & Scientific Realism, he rebuts an arguments in favour of Plato's theory of forms that rely on semantics by describing "a long but, I think, on the whole discreditable tradition which tries to settle ontological questions on the basis of semantic considerations". [20]



In metaphysics, Armstrong defends the view that universals exist (although Platonic uninstantiated universals do not exist). Those universals match up with the fundamental particles that science tells us about. [21] Armstrong describes his philosophy as a form of scientific realism. [22]

Armstrong's universals are "sparse": not every predicate will have an accompanying property, but only those which are deemed basic by scientific investigation. The ultimate ontology of universals would only be realised with the completion of physical science. Mass would thus be a universal (subject to mass not being discarded by future physicists). Armstrong realises that we will need to refer to and use properties that are not considered universals in his sparse ontology—for instance, being able to refer to something being a game (to use the example from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations ). Armstrong then suggests that a supervenience relation exists between these second order properties and the ontologically authentic universals given to us by physics. [23]

Armstrong's theory of universals treats relations as having no particular ontological difficulty, they can be treated in the same way non-relational properties are. How Armstrong's theory of universals deals with relations with varying adicities has been raised as an issue by Fraser MacBride. [24] MacBride argues that there can be relations where the number of terms in the relation varies across instances. Armstrong's response is to affirm a theory he describes as the Principle of Instantial Invariance, wherein the adicity of properties are essential and invariant. According to Armstrong, complex relations which seem to challenge the principle are not ontologically real but are second-order properties that can be reduced to more basic properties that subscribe to the Principle of Instantial Invariance. [25]

Armstrong rejects nominalist accounts of properties that attempt to align properties simply with classes. Coextension is a problem they face: if properties are simply classes, in a world where all blue things are also wet, class nominalists are unable to draw a distinction between the property of being blue and being wet. He provides an analogy to the argument in Euthyphro : to say that electrons are electrons because they are part of the class of electrons puts the cart before the horse. They are part of the class of electrons because they are electrons. [26]

In Armstrong's view, nominalisms can also be criticised for producing a blob theory of reality. Objects have structure: they have parts, those parts are made of molecules, which are in turn made up of atoms standing in relation to one another, which are in turn made up of subatomic particles and so on. Blobbiness also threatens Platonic universals: a particular instantiating a universal in a world of Platonic universals becomes a matter of the blob-particular having a relation to a universal elsewhere (in the Platonic heaven, say), rather than having an internal relation in the way that a chemical element does to a constituent atom. [21]

Armstrong further rejects nominalisms that deny that properties and relations exist in reality because he suggests that these sorts of nominalisms, specifically referring to what he calls class nominalism, and resemblance nominalism, postulate primitives of either class membership or resemblance. [27] This primitive results in a vicious regress for both kinds of nominalisms, [28] Armstrong suggests, thus motivating his states-of-affairs based system that unites properties by postulating a primitive tie of instantiation [29] based on a fact-ontology, called states of affairs. [30]

In terms of the origin of Armstrong's view of universals, Armstrong says his view of universals is "relatively unexplored territory" but points to Hilary Putnam's 1970 paper 'On Properties' [31] as a possible forerunner. He also says that "Plato in his later works, Aristotle and the Scholastic Realists were ahead of contemporary philosophy in this matter, although handicapped by the relative backwardness of the science and the scientific methodology of their day". [32]

States of affairs

Central to Armstrong's philosophy is the idea of states of affairs ("facts" in Russell's terminology): in Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics, Armstrong claims that states of affairs are "the fundamental structures in reality". [33] A state of affairs roughly put is an instantiation of a particular and a universal: a state of affairs might be that a particular atom exists, instantiating a universal (say, that it is of a particular element, if chemical elements are ultimately accepted as part of Armstrong's universals). The particulars in Armstrong's ontology must have at least one universal—just as he rejects uninstantiated universals, he also rejects "unpropertied particulars". [34]

Armstrong argues that states of affairs are distinct things in ontology because they are more than the sum of their parts. If some particular a has a non-symmetric relation R to another particular b, then R (a, b) differs from R (b, a). It may be the case that R (a, b) obtains in the world but R (b, a) does not. Without states of affairs instantiating the particulars and universals (including relations), we cannot account for the truth of the one case and the falsity of the other. [21]

Laws of nature

Armstrong's theory of universals gives him the basis for an understanding of laws of nature as being relations between universals, a non-Humean account of laws of nature proposed independently by Armstrong, [35] Michael Tooley, [36] and Fred Dretske. [37] This account posits that the relations between universals are truthmakers for the statements about physical laws, and it is realist as it accepts that laws of nature are a feature of the world rather than just a way we talk about the world. Armstrong identifies the laws as holding between universals rather than particulars as an account of laws involving just particulars rather than universals would not adequately explain how laws of nature operate in the case of counterfactuals. [38]

To illustrate the theory, Stephen Mumford gives the example of all ravens are black. Under the theory of Armstrong, Tooley and Dretske, there is a relation of necessity between the universals ravenhood and blackness, rather than there being a relationship with every single raven. This allows the explanation of laws of nature that have not been instantiated. Mumford cites the frequently-used example of the moa bird: "It is supposed that every bird of this now-extinct species died at a young age, though not because of anything in its genetic makeup. Rather, it died mainly because of some virus that just happened to sweep through the population. One bird could have escaped the virus only to be eaten by a predator on the day before its fiftieth birthday." [39] Under the theory of Armstrong, Tooley and Dretske, such a coincidence would not be a law of nature.


Armstrong rejects dispositionalism, the idea that dispositional properties (or powers as they are sometimes referred to) are ontologically significant and have an important role in explaining laws of nature. [40] Armstrong believes that the challenge that dispositionalism presents for his account of laws of nature is not in the case of manifested dispositions (say, a glass dropping on the ground and breaking) but unmanifested dispositions (the fact that counter factually if one were to drop the glass on the ground, it would break). Armstrong simply states that the disposition is simply in the nature of the instantiated properties of the thing which is supposed to have the disposition. [41]

Truth and truthmakers

Regarding truth, Armstrong holds to what he describes as a "maximalist version" of truthmaker theory: he believes that every truth has a truthmaker, although there doesn't necessarily exist a one-to-one mapping between truth and truthmaker. [42] The possibility of one to many relations between truths and truthmakers is a feature that Armstrong believes allows truthmaker theory to answer some of the criticisms levelled at older correspondence theories of truth (of which he believes truthmaker theory to be an improved version). [43] Negative truths have truthmakers in Armstrong's account: he gives the example of a wall that is painted green. The wall being painted green is a truth for the proposition that it is not painted white and the proposition that it is not painted red and so on. [44]

The difficulty in providing an adequate account of truthmakers for events in the past is one reason Armstrong gives for rejecting presentism—the view that only the present exists (another reason being the incompatibility of such a view with special relativity). Presentists, Armstrong argues, must either deny that truthmakers are needed for statements about the past, or account for them "by postulating rather strange truthmakers". [45]


Armstrong holds to a physicalist, functionalist theory of the mind. He initially was attracted to Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind and the rejection of Cartesian dualism. Armstrong did not accept behaviourism and instead defended a theory he referred to as the "central-state theory" which identifies mental states with the state of the central nervous system. In A Materialist Theory of Mind, he accepted that mental states such as consciousness exist, but stated that they can be explained as physical phenomena. [46] Armstrong attributes his adoption of the central-state theory to the work of J. J. C. Smart—specifically the paper 'Sensations and Brain Processes'—and traces the lineage from there to Ullin Place's 1956 paper 'Is Consciousness a Brain Process?' [47]

Stephen Mumford said that Armstrong's A Materialist Theory of Mind "represents an authoritative statement of Australian materialism and was, and still is, a seminal piece of philosophy". [48]


Armstrong's view of knowledge is that the conditions of knowledge are satisfied when you have a justified true belief that you arrived at through a reliable process: that is, the belief was caused by some factor in the external world (hence the label of externalism). Armstrong uses the analogy of a thermometer: as a thermometer changes to reflect the temperature of the environment it is in, so must one's beliefs if they are reliably formed. The connection between knowledge and the external world, for Armstrong, is a nomological relationship (that is, a law of nature relationship). [49] Here, Armstrong's view is broadly similar to that of Alvin Goldman and Robert Nozick. [50] The intuitions that lead to this kind of externalism led Alvin Plantinga towards an account of knowledge that added the requirement for 'properly-functioning' cognitive systems operating according to a design plan. [51]


On the question of the relationship between beliefs and knowledge, Armstrong defends a "weak acceptance" of the belief condition, namely that if a person can be said to know some thing p, he or she believes p. In a paper for the Aristotelian Society, Armstrong rejects a series of linguistic arguments for a rejection of the belief condition which argue that one can have knowledge without having belief because a common usage of the word 'belief' is to imply lack of knowledge—Armstrong gives the example of if you asked a man on a railway station whether the train has just left and he said "I believe it has", you would take from this that he does not know that it has. [52]

Armstrong also argues that contradictory beliefs show that there is a connection between beliefs and knowledge. He gives the example of a woman who has learned her husband is dead but cannot bring herself to believe her husband is dead. She both believes and disbelieves her husband is dead: it just happens that one of her two beliefs is justified, true and satisfies some knowledge conditions. [52] [53]

Armstrong presents a response to Colin Radford's modified version of the "unconfident examinee" example. A student is asked when Queen Elizabeth I died, and he hesitatingly answers "1603" and exhibits no confidence in his answer. He has forgotten that at some point previously, he studied English history. Radford presents this as an example of knowledge without belief. But Armstrong differs on this: the unconfident examinee has a belief that Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, he knows that she died in 1603, but he does not know that he knows. Armstrong rejects the KK Principle—that to know some thing p, one must know that one knows p. [52] [53] Armstrong's rejection of the KK Principle is consistent with his wider externalist project. [54]



Selected articles


See also

Related Research Articles

Epistemology A branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, or some secure foundation of certainty such as a conclusion inferred from a basis of sound premises. The main rival of the foundationalist theory of justification is the coherence theory of justification, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.

In metaphysics, the problem of universals refers to the question of whether properties exist, and if so, what they are. Properties are qualities or relations that two or more entities have in common. The various kinds of properties, such as qualities and relations, are referred to as universals. For instance, one can imagine three cup holders on a table that have in common the quality of being circular or exemplifying circularity, or two daughters that have in common being the female offsprings of Frank. There are many such properties, such as being human, red, male or female, liquid, big or small, taller than, father of, etc. While philosophers agree that human beings talk and think about properties, they disagree on whether these universals exist in reality or merely in thought and speech.

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is merely imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of the universe, known and unknown. Philosophical questions about the nature of reality or existence or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, which is a major branch of metaphysics in the Western philosophical tradition. Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophical logic. These include questions about whether only physical objects are real, whether reality is fundamentally immaterial, whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist, whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist.

Hilary Putnam American philosopher

Hilary Whitehall Putnam was an American philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist, and a major figure in analytic philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. He made significant contributions to philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of science. At the time of his death, Putnam was Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University.

Roderick Milton Chisholm was an American philosopher known for his work on epistemology, metaphysics, free will, value theory, and the philosophy of perception. He was often called "the philosopher's philosopher."

Truthmaker theory is "the branch of metaphysics that explores the relationships between what is true and what exists."

In metaphysics, realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra is a philosopher. He is currently a lecturer at the University of Oxford, where he has the title of Professor of Metaphysics, and a Tutorial Fellow at Oriel College.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to philosophy:

A disposition is a quality of character, a habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a tendency to act in a specified way that may be learned.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Methodological naturalism is a philosophical basis for science, for which metaphysical naturalism provides only one possible ontological foundation. Broadly, the corresponding theological perspective is religious naturalism or spiritual naturalism. More specifically, metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions.

The term "trope" is both a term which denotes figurative and metaphorical language and one which has been used in various technical senses. The term trope derives from the Greek τρόπος (tropos), "a turn, a change", related to the root of the verb τρέπειν (trepein), "to turn, to direct, to alter, to change"; this means that the term is used metaphorically to denote, among other things, metaphorical language. Perhaps the term can be explained as meaning the same thing as a turn of phrase in its original sense.

Stephen Dean Mumford is a British philosopher, who is currently Professor of Metaphysics in the Department of Philosophy at Durham University. Mumford is best known for his work in metaphysics on dispositions and laws, but has also made contributions in the philosophy of sport.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to metaphysics:

Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence, sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

Michael C. Rea is an analytic philosopher and, since 2017, John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He specializes in metaphysics and philosophy of religion and has competence in epistemology and applied ethics as well. He is currently writing a book on divine hiddenness, in which he appeals to quantifier pluralism and argues that God cannot be quantified over by humans. Also, he is scheduled to give the 2017 Gifford Lectures, where he will also talk about divine hiddenness.

Donald Cary Williams American philosopher

Donald Cary Williams was an American philosopher and a professor at both the University of California Los Angeles and at Harvard University.


  1. David Armstrong, Universals: An Opinionated Introduction (1989), p. 8.
  2. Brian Garrett (2011). What Is This Thing Called Metaphysics?. Taylor & Francis. pp. 54–55. ISBN   978-1-136-79269-4.
  3. Haecceitism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  4. Brown, S.; Collinson, D.; Wilkinson, R., eds. (1996). Biographical Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Philosophers. pp. 31–32. ISBN   978-0-415-06043-1.
  5. "Armstrong, David Malet". Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1780–2012 (PDF). American Academy of Arts and Sciences. p. 17. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
  6. Jaegwon Kim, Ernest Sosa and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, eds. (2009). A Companion to Metaphysics (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 126–127.CS1 maint: Uses editors parameter (link)
  7. 1 2 Armstrong, D. M. (19 March 2002). "Curriculum Vitae" . Retrieved 2014-07-27.
  8. Godfrey-Smith, Peter. "Why does Australia have an outsized influence on philosophy?". Aeon. Retrieved 2019-03-21.
  9. Crittenden, P. (2010). "Sydney, University of, Department of General Philosophy". In Oppy, G.; Trakakis, N. N. A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Monash University Publishing. ISBN   978-0-9806512-1-8.
  10. Ivison, D. (2010). "Sydney, University of, Department of Philosophy (Reunification – 2009)". In Oppy, G.; Trakakis, N. N. A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Monash University Publishing. ISBN   978-0-9806512-1-8.
  11. 1 2 Chrucky, A. (April 2002). "An Interview with Professor David Armstrong" . Retrieved 2014-07-27.
  12. Townsend, A. (2010). "Anderson, John, and Andersonianism". In Oppy, G.; Trakakis, N. N. A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Monash University Publishing. ISBN   978-0-9806512-1-8.
  13. Stove, D. (1 March 2014). "A Tribute to David Armstrong". Quadrant . pp. 42–43.
  14. Irvine, A. (1 March 2014). "David Armstrong and Australian Materialism". Quadrant . pp. 36–39.
  15. Irvine, A. (1 March 2014). "David Armstrong: A Reader's Guide". Quadrant . pp. 40–41.
  16. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  17. Armstrong, D. M. (2001). "Interview". In Jobling, Lee; Runcie, Catherine. Matters of the Mind: Poems, Essays and Interviews in Honour of Leonie Kramer. University of Sydney. pp. 322–332. ISBN   978-1-86487-362-7.
  18. Forrest, P. (2010). "D. M. Armstrong". In Oppy, G.; Trakakis, N. N. A Companion to Philosophy in Australia and New Zealand. Monash University Publishing. ISBN   978-0-9806512-1-8.
  19. Armstrong, D. M.; Martin, C. B. (1969). Locke and Berkeley: A Collection of Critical Essays. Anchor Books. ISBN   978-0-268-00562-7.
  20. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Nominalism & Realism. Universals & Scientific Realism. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 65. ISBN   978-0-521-28033-4.
  21. 1 2 3 Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals. Westview Press. ISBN   978-0-8133-0763-3. OL   2211958M.
  22. Armstrong, D. M. (1980), A Theory of Universals, Cambridge University Press, ISBN   978-0-521-28032-7, OL   7735301M
  23. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  24. MacBride, F. (2005). "The Particular–Universal Distinction: A Dogma of Metaphysics?". Mind . 114 (455): 565–614. doi:10.1093/mind/fzi565.
  25. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. pp. 23–25. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  26. Mumford 2007 , pp. 23–24
  27. Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press. p. 37, 41.
  28. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Nominalism & Realism. Universals & Scientific Realism. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. ISBN   978-0-521-28033-4.
  29. Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: An Opinionated Introduction. Boulder: Westview Press. p. 110.
  30. Armstrong, D. M. (1997). A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 40.
  31. Putnam, H. (1970). "On Properties". In Rescher, N. Essays in Honour of Carl G. Hempel. Springer. ISBN   978-94-017-1466-2.
    Reprinted in Putnam, H. (1975). Mathematics, Matter and Method. Philosophical Papers. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-20665-5.
  32. Armstrong, D. M. (1980). Nominalism & Realism. Universals & Scientific Realism. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. p. xv. ISBN   978-0-521-28033-4.
  33. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. p. 36. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  34. Mumford 2007 , p. 29
  35. Armstrong, D. M. (1983). What is a Law of Nature. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-31481-7.
  36. Tooley, M. (1977). "The Nature of Laws". Canadian Journal of Philosophy . 7 (4): 667–698. doi:10.1080/00455091.1977.10716190. JSTOR   40230714.
  37. Dretske, F. (1977). "Laws of Nature". Philosophy of Science . 44 (2): 248–268. doi:10.1086/288741. JSTOR   187350.
  38. Mumford 2007 , p. 45
  39. Mumford, S. (2009). "Laws and Dispositions". In Le Poidevin, R.; Peter, S.; McGonigal, A.; Cameron, R. P. The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. pp. 472–473. ISBN   978-0-415-39631-8.
  40. Choi, S; Fara, M. (Spring 2014). Zalta, E. N., ed. "Dispositions". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Stanford University.
  41. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. pp. 48–53. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  42. Mumford 2007 , p. 171
  43. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. pp. 61–66. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  44. Armstrong, D. M. (2004). Truths and Truthmakers. Cambridge University Press. p. 24. ISBN   978-0-521-54723-9.
  45. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. p. 105. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  46. Mumford 2007 , pp. 133–140
  47. Armstrong, D. M. (2010). Sketch for a Systematic Metaphysics. Oxford University Press. p. 101. ISBN   978-0-19-965591-5.
  48. Mumford 2007 , p. 130
  49. Lehrer, K. (2000), Theory of knowledge, Westview Press, p. 178, ISBN   978-0-8133-9053-6, OL   6787085M
  50. Pollock, J. L. (1999), Contemporary theories of knowledge, Rowman & Littlefield, p. 13, ISBN   978-0-8476-8936-1, OL   31726M
  51. Plantinga, A. (1993), Warrant and proper function, Oxford University Press, ISBN   978-0-19-507863-3, OL   1700198M
  52. 1 2 3 Armstrong, D. M. (1969). "Does Knowledge Entail Belief?". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society . 70: 21–36. JSTOR   4544782.
  53. 1 2 Mumford 2007 , p. 155
  54. Hemp, D. (15 October 2006). "The KK (Knowing that One Knows) Principle". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved 2014-07-27.

Further reading