If the linking role is internal to the relation's nature rather than an added relational fact, then Bradley's regress presupposes a Bradleyan picture of relations that well-formed relational ontologies explicitly reject.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Bradley's regress(General problem in ontology; Lowe's formal-relation strategy is intended to block it): An infinite regress that arises when a relation between constituents of a state of affairs is itself treated as a further constituent requiring yet another relation to bind it, and so on without end
F.H. Bradley(the philosopher whose argument is referenced): A 19th-century British philosopher who argued that our everyday understanding of relations and things doesn't actually hold up under logical scrutiny.
Internal vs. external (properties/relations)(as used in metaphysics): Internal means something is built into the very nature of something (like 'being taller' is internal to comparing two people); external or added means it's separate from the core nature (like painting a chair red).
Relational ontology(as used in metaphysics): A philosophical view about what exists in the world, focused on the idea that relationships between things are fundamental rather than just accidental features added on top.

Based on where you are in your exploration