, Volume 78, Issue 6, pp 1303–1316 | Cite as

Are Chemical Kind Terms Rigid Appliers?

  • Michael Rubin
Original Article


According to Michael Devitt, the primary work of a rigidity distinction for kind terms is to distinguish non-descriptional predicates from descriptional predicates. The standard conception of rigidity fails to do this work when it is extended to kind terms. Against the standard conception, Devitt defends rigid application: a predicate is a rigid applier iff, if it applies to an object in one world, it applies to that object in every world in which it exists. Devitt maintains that rigid application does the job of identifying nondescriptional predicates perfectly. I argue that Devitt is wrong about this. When we examine more closely alternative theories about the identity and persistence conditions of those entities to which mass terms apply, we find no plausible theory that has the result that a term is rigid iff it is non-descriptional.


Standard Conception Persistence Condition Primary Work Dominance Theory Aggregate View 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I am grateful for the advice I received from two anonymous referees at Erkenntnis, Miri Albahari, Lynne Rudder Baker, Sam Cowling, Nic Damnjanovic, Fred Feldman, Hilary Kornblith, Helen Majewski, and Brandt Van der Gaast.


  1. Barnett, D. (2004). Some stuffs are not sums of stuffs. Philosophical Review, 113, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burge, T. (1977). A theory of aggregates. Nous, 11, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, M. (1994). Preserving the principle of one object to a place: A novel account of the relations among objects, sorts, sortals, and persistence conditions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 591–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook, M. (1980). If ‘cat’ is a rigid designator, what does it designate? Philosophical Studies, 37, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Devitt, M. (2005). Rigid application. Philosophical Studies, 125, 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1999). Language and reality (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Donnelly, M., & Bittner, T. (2009). Summation relations and portions of stuff. Philosophical Studies, 143, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine, K. (1999). Things and their parts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. LaPorte, J. (2000). Rigidity and kind. Philosophical Studies, 97(5), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laycock, H. (1972). Some questions of ontology. Philosophical Review, 81, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schwartz, S. P. (2002). Kinds, general terms, and rigidity: A reply to LaPorte. Philosophical Studies, 109, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zimmerman, D. (1995). Theories of masses and problems of constitution. Philosophical Review, 104, 53–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy, M207The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations