Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):170 – 184 (2004)
|Abstract||I address two related questions: first, what is the best theory of how objects have de re modal properties? Second, what is the best defense of essentialism given the variability of our modal intuitions? I critically discuss several theories of how objects have their de re modal properties and address the most threatening antiessentialist objection to essentialism: the variability of our modal intuitions. Drawing on linguistic treatments of vagueness and ambiguity, I show how essentialists can accommodate the variability of modal intuitions while holding that objects have their modal properties independently of contexts.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Maja Malec (2009). Essentialism Contextualized. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (2):201-217.
Janet Levin (2007). Can Modal Intuitions Be Evidence for Essentialist Claims? Inquiry 50 (3):253 – 269.
Danilo Šuster (2005). The Modality Principle and Work-Relativity of Modality. Acta Analytica 20 (4):41-52.
Sonia Roca-Royes (2011). Essentialism Vis-à-Vis Possibilia, Modal Logic, and Necessitism. Philosophy Compass 6 (1):54-64.
David Yates (forthcoming). The Essence of Dispositional Essentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
L. A. Paul (2006). In Defense of Essentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):333–372.
L. A. Paul (2004). The Context of Essence. [REVIEW] Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):170-184.
L. A. Paul (2004). The Context of Essence. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):170 – 184.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #49,656 of 549,359 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,303 of 549,359 )
How can I increase my downloads?