Hinduism, Leibniz, and Origin Essentialism
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10127138 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hill (0000-0001-7042-8318, Wichita State University, corresponding author), Scott Hill (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 54 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 141-148 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-24 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Indian Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-1791 • E-ISSN: 1573-0395 |
| Publisher | Springer Nature (PUBLISHER • SG) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10781-025-09630-x |
| OpenAlex | W7140198952 |
| Language | DE |
| References cited | 8 |
Deshmukh and Janssen-Lauret (2024) (hereafter D&J) show that origin essentialism, when combined with other metaphysical theses assumed by Kripke in Naming and Necessity , are together inconsistent with Hinduism. They also show that, given the way in which the seeming inconsistency arises, Hinduism, if there is an inconsistency, would be a counterexample to Kripke’s theory. I concur. But I argue that it is the auxiliary metaphysical theses, and not origin essentialism itself, that generates the inconsistency. I show that Leibniz’ philosophy shares with Hinduism the very feature that D&J use to generate the apparent inconsistency. But Leibniz’ philosophy also entails origin essentialism. Even so it is jointly consistent with origin essentialism and the Hindu doctrines D&J discuss. Furthermore, Hinduism and origin essentialism may be shown to be consistent even without auxiliary Leibnizian assumptions
Counterexample · Essentialism · Hinduism · Metaphysics · Philosophy of religion · Historical Philosophy and Science · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Highly cited | No |
|---|