Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–24 | Cite as

Fundamental non-qualitative properties

  • Byron SimmonsEmail author
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

The distinction between qualitative and non-qualitative properties should be familiar from discussions of the principle of the identity of indiscernibles: two otherwise exactly similar individuals, Castor and Pollux, might share all their qualitative properties yet differ with respect to their non-qualitative properties—for while Castor has the property being identical to Castor, Pollux does not. But while this distinction is familiar, there has not been much critical attention devoted to spelling out its precise nature. I argue that the class of non-qualitative properties is broader than it is often taken to be. When properly construed, it will not only include properties such as being identical to Castor, which somehow make reference to particular individuals, it will also include more general properties such as identity, composition, set membership, as well as various peculiarly ontological properties. Given that some of these more general properties help to explain objective similarity, we have reason to believe that there are fundamental non-qualitative properties.

Keywords

Qualitative properties Fundamental properties Observable properties Causal powers Necessary connections Absolute actuality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Sam Cowling, André Gallois, Arturo Javier-Castellanos, Li Kang, Ned Markosian, Kris McDaniel, Preston Werner, two anonymous referees, and an audience at the 2016 Pacific division meeting of the APA for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Adams, R. (1974). Theories of actuality. Noûs,8(3), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, R. (1979). Primitive thisness and primitive identity. Journal of Philosophy,76(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, D. L. M. (2014). Identity, discernibility, and composition. In A. J. Cotnoir & D. L. M. Baxter (Eds.), Composition as identity (pp. 244–253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, M. (1952). The identity of indiscernibles. Mind,61(242), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bricker, P. (1996). Isolation and unification: The realist analysis of possible worlds. Philosophical Studies,84(2), 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bricker, P. (2001). Island universes and the analysis of modality. In G. Preyer & F. Siebelt (Eds.), Reality and Humean supervenience: essays on the philosophy of David Lewis (pp. 27–55). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Bricker, P. (2006). Absolute actuality and the plurality of worlds. Philosophical Perspectives,20(1), 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bricker, P. (2008). Concrete possible worlds. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 111–134). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Bricker, P. (2017). Is there a Humean account of quantities? Philosophical Issues,27(1), 26–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bricker, P. (forthcoming). Realism without parochialism, In Modal matters: Essays in metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Broad, C. D. (1923). Scientific thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.Google Scholar
  12. Broad, C. D. (1938). An examination of McTaggart’s philosophy (Vol. 2, part 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carnap, R. (1947a). Meaning and necessity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carnap, R. (1947b). On the application of inductive logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,8(1), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cowling, S. (2012). Haecceitism for modal realists. Erkenntnis,77(3), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cowling, S. (2015). Non-qualitative properties. Erkenntnis,80(2), 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowling, S. (forthcoming). Recombining non-qualitative reality. Synthese.Google Scholar
  19. Divers, J. (2002). Possible worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Dorr, C. (2002). The simplicity of everything. Ph.D. diss.: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  21. Eddon, M. (2009). Quantity and quality: Naturalness in metaphysics. New Jersey: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  22. Fine, K. (1977). Properties, propositions and sets. Journal of Philosophical Logic,6(1), 135–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallois, A. (1998). Occasions of identity: A study in the metaphysics of persistence, change, and sameness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hawley, K. (2009). Identity and indiscernibility. Mind,118(469), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawthorne, J. (2001). Causal structuralism. Philosophical Perspectives, 15, 361–378. Reprinted in Hawthorne 2006, pp. 211–227.Google Scholar
  26. Hawthorne, J. (2006). Metaphysical essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hildebrand, T. (2016). Two types of quidditism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,94(3), 516–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoefer, C. (2009). Causation in spacetime theories. In H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock, & P. Menzies (Eds.), The oxford handbook of Causation (pp. 687–706). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hume, D. ([1739] 1888). A treatise of human nature. L.A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ismael, J. (2001). Essays in symmetry. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Ismael, J., & van Fraassen, B. C. (2003). Symmetry as a guide to superfluous theoretical structure. In K. Brading & E. Castellani (Eds.), Symmetries in physics: Philosophical reflections (pp. 371–392). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kant, I. ([1781/1787] 1998). Critique of pure reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans. & Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lange, M. (1995). Are there natural laws concerning particular biological species? Journal of Philosophy,92(8), 430–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lange, M. (2000). Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Leibniz, G.W. ([1717] 1956). The LeibnizClarke correspondence. In H.G. Alexander (Ed.), Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,61(4), 343–377. Reprinted in Lewis 1999, pp. 8–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, D. (2001). Redefining ‘intrinsic’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,63(2), 381–395.Google Scholar
  40. Lewis, D. (2009). Ramseyan humility. In D. Braddon-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism (pp. 203–222). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. MacFarlane, J. (2000). What does it mean to say that logic is formal? Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  42. Maddy, P. (1990). Realism in mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rickles, D. (2006). Time and structure in canonical gravity. In R. Dean, S. French, & J. Saatsi (Eds.), The structural foundations of quantum gravity (pp. 152–195). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rickles, D. (2008). Symmetry, structure, and spacetime. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  46. Rosen, G., & Dorr, C. (2002). Composition as a fiction. In R. M. Gale (Ed.), The blackwell guide to metaphysics (pp. 151–174). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Rosenkrantz, G. (1979). The pure and the impure. Logique et Analyse,22(88), 515–523.Google Scholar
  48. Saucedo, R. (2011). Parthood and location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics,6, 225–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sider, T. (1993). Naturalness, intrinsicality, and duplication, Ph.D. diss., Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  50. Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simmons, B. (forthcoming). Impure concepts and non-qualitative properties, Synthese.Google Scholar
  52. Teller, P. (1984). A poor man’s guide to supervenience and determination. Southern Journal of Philosophy,22(Special Issue), 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tooley, M. (1977). The nature of laws. Canadian Journal of Philosophy,7(4), 667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wang, J. (2013). From combinatorialism to primitivism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,91(3), 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wedin, M. V. (2000). Aristotle’s theory of substance: The categories and metaphysics zeta. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Williams, D. C. (1962). Dispensing with existence. Journal of Philosophy,59(23), 748–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations