There had been several distinctions between the Bundle Theory and the Bare Substratum Theory

of Concrete Particulars in which had not been recognized by all metaphysicians. The differences
between a concrete particular and the attributes it possesses plays an important role in
metaphysical thinking as both theories were in a totally different ontological category. Hence, one
of the differences that should be highlighted would be on the nature of attributes. As we all
know, non-philosopher describes concrete particulars as "things" including individual persons,
animals, plants and even inanimate objects. However, there are things that cannot be
exemplified, but they can exemplify many attributes. There are also things that exist temporarily
bounded by careers, in which they exist in a certain period of time and then pass out of existence
after some period of time. Simply said, there are contingent beings that exist, but their
nonexistence is also possible. By understanding that each attribute are associated with a concrete
particular, we will then agree that there are exemplified properties which were exemplified by
something.

The Bare Substratum theorists took familiar concrete particulars to have two different kinds of
constituents which are the attributes and the bare subjects. They insisted that this is the
relationship between the underlying subject and its attributes that provide the ontological glue
that binds more than one constituent together and become one single concrete object. Opposing
the Bundle theorists ideology, they believed that it is because the bare substratum exemplifies
each of the properties in question that we have one particular thing rather than a diffuse plurality
of things in which the substratum theorist called as a host of tropes. Based on their views, a
familiar concrete particular or object does not turn out to be underived entities, but the
constructions of more basic entities compiled together.

On the other hand, the philosophers who agrees with Bundle Theory deny the differences
between attributes and the particulars that have them to be considered an ontologically
important distinction. These bundle theorists defended their ideology by using repeatable
entities, or multiply occurrent entities to explain their theory. Under the Bundle theory, familiar
objects are construes as cluster of attributes standing in the relation of collocation and co-
occurrence. They believed that it is impossible for a concrete object to have bare strata. This
theory is committed to the idea of constructed items as not more than just the items that are put
together to constitute them as we can provide a complete recipe for complex things by
identifying their constituents items. This is the fundamental reason behind the objections of
Bundle Theory by the supporters of Bare Substratum theory.