Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:27:37.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Essence in abundance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Alexander Skiles
Alexander Skiles*
Affiliation:
Institut de philosophie, Université de Neuchâtel, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
*
*Email: alexander.j.skiles@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fine (1994 “Essence and Modality”;, Philosophical Perspectives, 8: 1–16) is widely thought to have refuted the simple modal account of essence, which takes the essential properties of a thing to be those it cannot exist without exemplifying. Yet, a number of philosophers have suggested resuscitating the simple modal account by appealing to distinctions akin to the distinction Lewis (1983. “New Work For a Theory of Universals”;, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377; 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell) draws between sparse and abundant properties, treating only those in the former class as candidates for essentiality. I argue that ‘sparse modalism’ succumbs to counterexamples similar to those originally posed by Fine, and fails to capture paradigmatic instances of essence involving abundant properties and relations.

Keywords

essencemodalityessentialismsparse versus abundant propertiesKit FineDavid Lewis
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 100 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almog, J. 1991. “The What and The How.”; The Journal of Philosophy 88: 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almog, J. 2003. “The Structure-In-Things: Existence, Essence, and Logic.”; Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103: 197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcan, R. 1971. “Marcus, Essential Attribution.”; The Journal of Philosophy 68: 187–202.Google Scholar
Brogaard, B., and Salerno, J.. 2007. “A Counterfactual Account of Essence.”; The Reasoner 4: 4–5.Google Scholar
Copi, I. 1954. “Essence and Accident.”; The Journal of Philosophy 51: 706–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, F. 2005. Existential Dependence and Cognate Notions. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
Correia, F. 2007. “(Finean) Essence and (Priorean) Modality.”; Dialectica 61: 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, S. 2013. “The Modal View of Essence.”; Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43: 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Rocca, M. 1996. “Essentialism: Parts I and II.”; Philosophical Books 37, 1–13 and 81–89.Google Scholar
Denby, D. 2014. “Essence and Intrinsicality.”; In Companion to Intrinsic Properties, edited by Francescotti, R., 87–109. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dorr, C. 2007. “There are No Abstract Objects.”; In Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Hawthorne, J., Sider, T., and Zimmerman, D., 32–63. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eddon, M. manuscript. “Parthood and Naturalness.”;Google Scholar
Elder, C. 2004. Real Natures and Familiar Objects. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 1994. “Essence and Modality.”; Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 1995. “Senses of Essence.”; In Modality, Morality, and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus, edited by Sinnott-Armstrong, W., 57–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gorman, M. 2005. “The Essential and the Accidental.”; Ratio 18: 276–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. 2012. “Varieties of Ontological Dependence.”; In Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, edited by Correia, F. and Schnieder, B., 186–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. “New Work For a Theory of Universals.”; Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Linnebo, Ø. 2008. “Structuralism and the Notion of Dependence.”; Philosophical Quarterly 58: 59–79.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2008. “Two Notions of Being: Entity and Essence.”; Philosophy 83: 23–48.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. 2006. “The Limits of Contingency.”; In Identity and Modality, edited by MacBride, F., 13–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2004. “Two Conceptions of Sparse Properties.”; Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 2011. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, C. 2012. “Colocated Objects, Tally-Ho: A Solution to the Grounding Problem.”; Mind 121: 703–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, B. 2009. “Essence and Potentiality.”;, Presented at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, available online at http://www.academia.edu/183665/Essence_and_Potentiality.Google Scholar
Wildman, N. 2013. “Modality, Sparsity, and Essence.”; The Philosophical Quarterly 63: 760–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalta, E. 2006. “Essence and Modality.”; Mind 115: 659–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. M. 1990. “Relevant Predication 3: Essential Properties.”; In Truth or Consequences, edited by Dunn, J. M. and Gupta, A., 77–95. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed