Soc it to me? Reply to McDaniel on maxcon simples

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):332 – 340 (2004)
I raised the following question in a recent paper: What are the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for an object's being a simple? And I proposed and defended this answer (which I called 'MaxCon'): Necessarily, x is a simple iff x is a maximally continuous object. In a more recent paper, Kris McDaniel raises several objections to MaxCon, including, in particular, two objections based on a principle about the supervenience of constitution that he calls 'SoC'. The purpose of the present paper is to address the main objections raised by McDaniel, and to show that none of them poses a serious threat to MaxCon.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/713659841
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive Ned Markosian, Soc it to me? Reply to McDaniel on maxcon simples
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Ned Markosian (forthcoming). The Right Stuff. Australasian Journal of Philosophy:1-23.
Hud Hudson (2007). Simples and Gunk. Philosophy Compass 2 (2):291–302.
Joshua Spencer (2010). A Tale of Two Simples. Philosophical Studies 148 (2):167 - 181.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

63 ( #52,817 of 1,725,806 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

27 ( #36,411 of 1,725,806 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.