Full Idea
It is a mistake, or at least misleading, to think of supervenience itself as a special and distinctive type of dependence relation, alongside causal dependence, mereological dependence, semantic dependence, and others.
Gist of Idea
Supervenience is not a dependence relation, on the lines of causal, mereological or semantic dependence
Source
Jaegwon Kim (Postscripts on supervenience [1993], 2)
Book Reference
Kim,Jaegwon: 'Supervenience and Mind' [CUP 1993], p.167
A Reaction
The point, I take it, is that supervenience is something which requires explanation, rather than being a conclusion to the debate. Why are statues beautiful? Why do brains generate minds?
Related Idea
Idea 13746 Supervenience is just a 'surface' relation of pattern covariation, which still needs deeper explanation [Kim]