ABSTRACT
In his article “Particulars” 1 Professor Wilfrid Sellars has defended a position which substitutes for the “absurd notion” of “bare” particulars a concept deemed by him to be more defensible. Moreover he presents us with a diagnosis of this “absurdity,” and presents his conception of a particular as one which will strike at the roots of the disease as well as remove its more obvious manifestations. The conception to which this therapeutic value is attributed is not an original one; it is essentially the particular of, e.g., McTaggart which he puts forward. But since Professor Sellars draws from the conception some novel implications and puts it to some novel uses, it would be appropriate to critically consider the whole question in the context of his discussion. 2
