ブラッドリー的無限後退は事態の存在論にとって無害なのか

抄録

According to the widely accepted correspondence theory of truth, each atomic contingent truth has its own truth-maker, i.e., an entity existing in the world that makes contingent proposition true. And at least for the metaphysical realist, the first and obvious candidates for truth-maker are entities called “facts” or “states of affairs”. These are entities normally designated by expressions like “a's being F” or “the fact that a is F”.
Although it seems natural to assume that states of affairs exist, there is a famous objection to this assumption, known as “Bradley's regress”. Roughly put, the objection proceeds as follows. The states of affairs are supposed to be complex entities. However, what accounts for the unity of constituents in the state of affairs, say, Fa? If one appeals to the exemplification relation E to bind the constituents a and F together, the explanatory job is not yet finished. For, in that case, the unity of a, F, and E now raises the same problem. It is no use to add further and further exemplification relations E', E'', E'''..., because each time one adds a new relation, one gets only a new explanatory task, and never the unity of a and F. Thus, since the unity of constituents cannot be accounted for, the assumption that states of affairs exist should be regarded as groundless.
Against this objection, F. Orilia replies as follows. Though the regress objection above seems to seriously threaten the assumption that states of affairs exist, in fact it does not. For, the thought that there is an infinite explanatory sequence does not involve any inconsistency. As for myself, I agree with him as far as his last claim is concerned, namely the claim that there is no inconsistency in the idea of infinite explanatory sequence. However, I disagree with him as far as the evaluation of the regress objection is concerned. I claim that the alleged explanatory sequence generated in the regress objection is in fact vacant in its explanatory power, and hence that this objection in any way shows the failure of explanatory task.