anti haecceitism

Definition and Historical Background

Anti haecceitism is a position in metaphysics that rejects haecceities—primitive, non-qualitative “thisnesses” of individuals. Where haecceitism holds that each individual has an irreducible identity beyond its qualitative properties and relations, anti haecceitism denies that there are such extra facts. On this view, once all qualitative facts are fixed, there is no further metaphysical difference concerning which particular individual is which.

The term derives from haecceity (haecceitas), a notion usually associated with the medieval philosopher John Duns Scotus. For Scotus, a haecceity is the ultimate principle of individuation: what makes this particular thing numerically distinct from all others, even if qualitatively indiscernible. Modern discussions, however, often use “haecceitism” and “anti haecceitism” in the context of modal metaphysics and possible worlds, rather than in Scotus’s broader scholastic framework.

Anti haecceitism is thus not a purely historical doctrine but a contemporary stance: it opposes the idea that possible worlds may differ in purely “individual-based” ways without differing qualitatively. It is closely tied to questions about transworld identity, supervenience, and the metaphysics of individuality.

Anti Haecceitism in Modal Metaphysics

In contemporary analytic philosophy, anti haecceitism is most clearly articulated in discussions of possible worlds.

David Lewis famously distinguishes haecceitist from anti haecceitist views by asking whether there can be two distinct possible worlds that:

• agree on all qualitative facts (which properties are instantiated, which relations hold, and the overall structure of the world);
• but differ only in which individual occupies a given role.

Anti haecceitists answer no: if there is no qualitative difference between two putative worlds, then there is in fact only one possible world described in two notationally different ways. For them, possible worlds are individuated exclusively by qualitative structure.

Key contrasts include:

• Haecceitist scenario: Consider two qualitatively identical spheres, A and B, existing alone in an otherwise empty universe. A haecceitist might claim that there is a possible world where A is on the left and B on the right, and a distinct world where B is on the left and A on the right—even though the qualitative description “two identical spheres, one left, one right” is the same.

• Anti haecceitist response: Anti haecceitists typically hold that there is just one world here. Since all qualitative facts (positions, distances, mass, shape) are the same, there is no additional, non-qualitative fact that could differentiate these “worlds.”

In technical terms, many anti haecceitists adopt a supervenience thesis:

"

All facts about which individuals there are, and which roles they play, supervene on qualitative facts; no two possible worlds can differ only haecceitistically (regarding “which is which”) without a qualitative difference.

This perspective has implications for:

• Transworld identity: Some anti haecceitists combine their view with counterpart theory (also developed by Lewis), according to which an individual does not literally exist in multiple possible worlds. Instead, qualitatively similar counterparts in other worlds play the modal roles. This can soften the need for primitive identity across worlds.

• Individual essences: Anti haecceitism tends to resist the idea that individuals possess non-qualitative essences (essences not reducible to redescriptions in terms of qualitative properties and relations). To say that “being Socrates” is a primitive metaphysical feature over and above all of Socrates’s qualitative features is, on this view, metaphysically extravagant or unintelligible.

Proponents argue that anti haecceitism aligns with Ockham’s razor, reducing metaphysical commitments to qualitative structure. Critics, however, suggest that ordinary modal talk—such as “this very person might have been someone else’s child”—seems to presuppose more than purely qualitative differences.

Physics, Structuralism, and Debates

Anti haecceitism also plays a major role in the philosophy of physics, especially in discussions of indistinguishable particles in quantum mechanics and the nature of spacetime points.

In quantum theory, many particles (e.g., electrons) are taken to be indistinguishable: they share all relevant qualitative properties. The quantum state is usually required to be symmetric (for bosons) or antisymmetric (for fermions) under permutation of particle labels. Anti haecceitists interpret this as evidence that there are no further facts about which electron is which beyond the qualitative structure encoded in the wavefunction and its symmetries.

This dovetails with structuralism:

• Ontic structural realism and related views often claim that what is fundamental is a relational or structural pattern, not self-subsistent individuals. On such views, anti haecceitism posits that all metaphysical facts about “objects” are derivative upon or reducible to structural facts.

• In the context of spacetime, anti haecceitism can be seen in reactions to Leibniz’s shift arguments: the idea that a universe shifted uniformly in space (or time) is not a distinct possible world, because all qualitative facts are the same. Anti haecceitists in this domain reject the need for primitive identities of spacetime points, instead endorsing some form of relationalism or structuralism about spacetime.

Ongoing debates address several issues:

1. Intuitive costs: Critics say anti haecceitism conflicts with powerful intuitions about de re modality (modality concerning particular individuals). For example, “this very child might have been raised elsewhere” seems to single out an individual independently of its qualitative description.

2. Formal representation: In logic and model theory, anti haecceitist intuitions motivate restrictions on models or isomorphisms that treat worlds or structures differing only by permutations of indiscernibles as representing the same possibility.

3. Identity and discernibility: The debate intersects with the principle of the identity of indiscernibles. While not all anti haecceitists endorse that principle in its strong form, many hold that qualitative discernibility is the only ground for metaphysical distinctness across possible worlds.

4. Scope and variants: Some philosophers adopt local anti haecceitism (about certain domains, such as particles or spacetime points) while remaining neutral or even haecceitist about other domains (such as persons or abstract objects). This shows that anti haecceitism can come in graded or domain-specific forms.

Across these discussions, anti haecceitism functions less as a single doctrine and more as a family of related positions united by a core commitment: there are no primitive facts of identity beyond qualitative and structural facts. Whether this commitment is ultimately compatible with our modal intuitions and scientific practice remains an active topic of philosophical inquiry.