Haecceity is often understood as a theoretical construct posited by Duns Scotus to explain individuation. This characterization is flawed in two ways: first, it lends haecceity an ad hoc appearance and obscures the fact that it is called for by Scotus’s most basic philosophical commitments; second, it undermines what little description Scotus gives us of haecceities since, in his treatments of individuation, he appeals to logical features of a haecceity’s concept to draw conclusions about its metaphysical properties in a move that is not clearly justified. I argue that haecceity is entailed by Scotus’s doctrine of the univocity of the concept of being well before he presents it as a solution to the problem of individuation. Understanding haecceity through its relationship to the concept of being situates it as a coherent member of Scotus’s ontology and better explains why he attributes to it the properties that he does.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthew Wennemann (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: