An analysis of intrinsicality

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The leading account of intrinsicality over the last thirty years has arguably been David Lewis's account in terms of perfect naturalness. Lewis's account, however, has three serious problems: i) it cannot allow necessarily coextensive properties to differ in whether they are intrinsic; ii) it falsely classifies non-qualitative properties like being Obama as non-intrinsic; and iii) it is incompatible with a number of metaphysical theories that posit irreducibly non-categorical properties. I argue that, as a result of these problems, Lewis's account should be rejected and replaced with an alternative account, which also analyses intrinsicality in terms of perfect naturalness, but which avoids these problems.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)704-739
Number of pages36
JournalNoûs
Volume50
Issue number4
Early online date5 Feb 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2016

Fingerprint

Naturalness
Barack Obama
Intrinsic
Metaphysical
David Lewis

Cite this

MARSHALL, Dan. / An analysis of intrinsicality. In: Noûs. 2016 ; Vol. 50, No. 4. pp. 704-739.
@article{f31d8de1919843beb08716bfe4bbdc88,
title = "An analysis of intrinsicality",
abstract = "The leading account of intrinsicality over the last thirty years has arguably been David Lewis's account in terms of perfect naturalness. Lewis's account, however, has three serious problems: i) it cannot allow necessarily coextensive properties to differ in whether they are intrinsic; ii) it falsely classifies non-qualitative properties like being Obama as non-intrinsic; and iii) it is incompatible with a number of metaphysical theories that posit irreducibly non-categorical properties. I argue that, as a result of these problems, Lewis's account should be rejected and replaced with an alternative account, which also analyses intrinsicality in terms of perfect naturalness, but which avoids these problems.",
author = "Dan MARSHALL",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/nous.12087",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "704--739",
journal = "Nous",
issn = "0029-4624",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

An analysis of intrinsicality. / MARSHALL, Dan.

In: Noûs, Vol. 50, No. 4, 12.2016, p. 704-739.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of intrinsicality

AU - MARSHALL, Dan

PY - 2016/12

Y1 - 2016/12

N2 - The leading account of intrinsicality over the last thirty years has arguably been David Lewis's account in terms of perfect naturalness. Lewis's account, however, has three serious problems: i) it cannot allow necessarily coextensive properties to differ in whether they are intrinsic; ii) it falsely classifies non-qualitative properties like being Obama as non-intrinsic; and iii) it is incompatible with a number of metaphysical theories that posit irreducibly non-categorical properties. I argue that, as a result of these problems, Lewis's account should be rejected and replaced with an alternative account, which also analyses intrinsicality in terms of perfect naturalness, but which avoids these problems.

AB - The leading account of intrinsicality over the last thirty years has arguably been David Lewis's account in terms of perfect naturalness. Lewis's account, however, has three serious problems: i) it cannot allow necessarily coextensive properties to differ in whether they are intrinsic; ii) it falsely classifies non-qualitative properties like being Obama as non-intrinsic; and iii) it is incompatible with a number of metaphysical theories that posit irreducibly non-categorical properties. I argue that, as a result of these problems, Lewis's account should be rejected and replaced with an alternative account, which also analyses intrinsicality in terms of perfect naturalness, but which avoids these problems.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/4393

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84923206113&doi=10.1111%2fnous.12087&partnerID=40&md5=22315bfe41366fc70f1158cb2a59d9c3

U2 - 10.1111/nous.12087

DO - 10.1111/nous.12087

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 50

SP - 704

EP - 739

JO - Nous

JF - Nous

SN - 0029-4624

IS - 4

ER -