Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Teller, Paul 2018. Making worlds with symbols. Synthese,

    Law, Andrew and Tognazzini, Neal A. 2018. Free Will and Two Local Determinisms. Erkenntnis,

    Merlo, Giovanni 2017. Multiple reference and vague objects. Synthese, Vol. 194, Issue. 7, p. 2645.

    Jaskolla, Ludwig 2017. Real Fourdimensionalism. Vol. 130, Issue. , p. 25.

    Bailey, Andrew M. 2016. You Are an Animal. Res Philosophica, Vol. 93, Issue. 1, p. 205.

    Kovacs, David Mark 2010. IS THERE A CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION TO THE MANY THINKERS PROBLEM?. Ratio, Vol. 23, Issue. 3, p. 275.

    2008. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. p. 411.

    Paul, L. A. 2006. IN DEFENSE OF ESSENTIALISM. Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 20, Issue. 1, p. 333.

    Smith, Thomas H. 2005. What is the Hallé?. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 34, Issue. 1, p. 75.

  • Print publication year: 1999
  • Online publication date: February 2010

9 - Many, but almost one



Think of a cloud – just one cloud, and around it clear blue sky. Seen from the ground, the cloud may seem to have a sharp boundary. Not so. The cloud is a swarm of water droplets. At the outskirts of the cloud the density of the droplets falls off. Eventually they are so few and far between that we may hesitate to say that the outlying droplets are still part of the cloud at all; perhaps we might better say only that they are near the cloud. But the transition is gradual. Many surfaces are equally good candidates to be the boundary of the cloud. Therefore many aggregates of droplets, some more inclusive and some less inclusive (and some inclusive in different ways than others), are equally good candidates to be the cloud. Since they have equal claim, how can we say that the cloud is one of these aggregates rather than another? But if all of them count as clouds, then we have many clouds rather than one. And if none of them count, each one being ruled out because of the competition from the others, then we have no cloud. How is it, then, that we have just one cloud? And yet we do.

This is Unger's (1980) ‘problem of the many’. Once noticed, we can see that it is everywhere, for all things are swarms of particles.

There are always outlying particles, questionably parts of the thing, not definitely included and not definitely not included. So there are always many aggregates, differing by a little bit here and a little bit there, with equal claim to be the thing.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology
  • Online ISBN: 9780511625343
  • Book DOI:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *