David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Dean Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. Oup Oxford. 155-206 (2006)
Everyone working on metaphysical questions about properties or propositions knows the reaction that many non-philosophers, even nonmetaphysicians, have to such questions. Even though they agree that Fido is a dog and thus has the property (or feature or characteristic) of being a dog, it seems weird, suspicious, or confused to them to now ask what that thing, the property of being a dog, is. The same reservations do not carry over to asking what this thing, Fido, is. There is a substantial and legitimate project to find out more about Fido, but is there a similar substantial and legitimate project to find out more about the property of being a dog? Metaphysicians know that there is a straightforward way to motivate such a project, and much of the contemporary debate in the metaphysics of properties is in the ballpark of carrying it out. If we agree that Fido has the property of being a dog, then there is something that is a property and that Fido has. Thus we can ask about what this thing is that he has. How does it relate to Fido? Is it concrete or abstract? Is it fully present in each object that has it? And so on and so forth. Maybe the nonphilosophers are merely not used to asking such questions about unusual entities such as properties, but they are equally legitimate for them as they are for any other thing. However, even metaphysicians sometimes have the nagging feeling that something has gone wrong in the metaphysics of properties, and that a substantial metaphysical investigation into their..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael Esfeld (2003). Do Relations Require Underlying Intrinsic Properties? A Physical Argument for a Metaphysics of Relations. Metaphysica: International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics 4 (1):5-25.
Andrew Newman, The Bundle Theory, the Principle of Unity for Elementary Particulars, and Some Issues.
Peter Forrest (1988). Supervenience: The Grand-Property Hypothesis. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66 (March):1-12.
L. A. Paul (2006). In Defense of Essentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):333–372.
Alexander Bird (2009). Essences and Natural Kinds. In Robin Le Poidevin (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics. Routledge. 497--506.
Josh Parsons (2004). Distributional Properties. In Frank Jackson & Graham Priest (eds.), Lewisian Themes: The Philosophy of David K. Lewis. Clarendon Press.
Stephen Schiffer (1987). The `Fido'-Fido Theory of Belief. Philosophical Perspectives 1:455-480.
Benjamin Schnieder (2010). Inexpressible Properties and Grelling's Antinomy. Philosophical Studies 148 (3):369 - 385.
Added to index2009-03-19
Total downloads78 ( #16,130 of 1,096,629 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #102,815 of 1,096,629 )
How can I increase my downloads?