Graduate studies at Western
The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:103-112 (2006)
|Abstract||Applied to evaluative properties the supervenience thesis is customarily understood as expressing two intuitions: (i) the idea that there is some kind of dependence between the (supervenient) value of an object and some (or all) of the natural properties of the object; (ii) the idea that if you assert that x is valuable and if you agree that y is relevantly similar to x, with regard to natural properties, you must be prepared to assert that y too is valuable. It is argued that the influential account of supervenience by R. M. Hare is problematic in that it only expresses the latter but not the former intuition. Two solutions to this problem are outlined, one of which ought to be endorsable by a prescriptivist such as Hare|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jürgen Schröder (2007). Mental Causation and the Supervenience Argument. Erkenntnis 67 (2):221 - 237.
Jeffrey Yoshimi (2007). Supervenience, Determination, and Dependence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (1):114–133.
Brian Loar (1993). Can We Confirm Supervenient Properties? Philosophical Issues 4:74-92.
Ingmar Persson (2006). Why There Cannot Be Transitivity With Respect to Supervenient Properties. In Björn Haglund & Helge Malmgren (eds.), Kvantifikator För En Dag. Essays Dedicated to Dag Westerståhl on His Sixtieth Birthday.
Peter Forrest (1988). Supervenience: The Grand-Property Hypothesis. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 66 (March):1-12.
Joseph A. Baltimore (2013). Careful, Physicalists: Mind–Body Supervenience Can Be Too Superduper. Theoria 79 (1):8-21.
Harold Kincaid (1987). Supervenience Doesn't Entail Reducibility. Southern Journal of Philosophy 25 (3):343-56.
Ausonio Marras (1993). Materialism, Functionalism, and Supervenient Qualia. Dialogue 32 (3):475-92.
Andrew Melnyk (1991). Physicalism: From Supervenience to Elimination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51 (September):573-87.
Robert Poczobut (2000). Superweniencja. Zarys problematyki. Filozofia Nauki 2.
Jessica M. Wilson (1999). How Superduper Does a Physicalist Supervenience Need to Be? Philosophical Quarterly 50 (194):33-52.
Michael Glanzberg (2001). Supervenience and Infinitary Logic. Noûs 35 (3):419-439.
Jaegwon Kim (1999). Supervenient Properties and Micro-Based Concepts: A Reply to Noordhof. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1):115-118.
Thomas D. Bontly (2002). The Supervenience Argument Generalizes. Philosophical Studies 109 (1):75-96.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads1 ( #292,563 of 739,401 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,401 )
How can I increase my downloads?