David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Analytica 20 (4):41-52 (2005)
Davies argues that the ontology of artworks as performances offers a principled way of explaining work-relativity of modality. Object oriented contextualist ontologies of art (Levinson) cannot adequately address the problem of work-relativity of modal properties because they understand looseness in what counts as the same context as a view that slight differences in the work-constitutive features of provenance are work-relative. I argue that it is more in the spirit of contextualism to understand looseness as context-dependent. This points to the general problem—the context of appreciation is not robust enough to ground modal intuitions about objective entities. In general, when epistemology dictates ontology there is always a threat of anti-realism, scepticism and relativism. Davies also appeals to the modality principle—an entity’s essential properties are all and only its constitutive properties. Davies understands essentiality in a traditional way: a property P is an essential property of an object o iff o could not exist and lack P. Kit Fine has recently made a convincing case for the view that the notion of essence is not to be understood in modal terms. I explore some of the implications of this view for Davies’ modal argument for the performance theory.
|Keywords||David Davies ,contextualism in art, the modaliity principle, modal argument, essentialism, Kit Fine|
|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
Kit Fine (1994). Essence and Modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8:1-16.
David Davies (2004). Art as Performance. Blackwell Pub..
Jerrold Levinson (1990). Music, Art, and Metaphysics: Essays in Philosophical Aesthetics. Cornell University Press.
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.
Citations of this work BETA
Ben Caplan & Carl Matheson (2008). Modality, Individuation, and the Ontology of Art. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (4):491-517.
Similar books and articles
Sonia Roca-Royes (2006). Peacocke’s Principle-Based Account of Modality: “Flexibility of Origins” Plus S4. Erkenntnis 65 (3):405-426.
L. A. Paul (2006). In Defense of Essentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 20 (1):333–372.
Edward N. Zalta (2006). Essence and Modality. Mind 115 (459):659-693.
Graeme Forbes (2008). Critical Notice of Kit Fine's Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers. Philosophical Review 117 (2):275-287.
David Yates (2013). The Essence of Dispositional Essentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (1):93-128.
Adam Murray & Jessica M. Wilson (2012). Relativized Metaphysical Modality. In Karen Bennett & Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press 189.
Danilo Suster (1996). Modality and Supervenience. Acta Analytica 15 (15):141-155.
Kathleen Stock (2005). On Davies' Argument From Relational Properties. Acta Analytica 20 (4):24-31.
Derek Matravers (2005). Two Comments and a Problem for David Davies' Performance Theory. Acta Analytica 20 (4):32-40.
Božidar Kante (2005). Contextualism, Art, and Rigidity: Levinson, Currie and Davies. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 20 (4):53-63.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #94,471 of 1,911,818 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #116,720 of 1,911,818 )
How can I increase my downloads?