Single Idea 3841

[catalogued under 7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 5. Supervenience / b. Types of supervenience]

Full Idea

I am no fan of the concept of supervenience. Its uncritical use is a sign of philosophical confusion, because the concept oscillates between causal supervenience and constitutive supervenience.

Gist of Idea

Users of 'supervenience' blur its causal and constitutive meanings


John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.9 n5)

Book Reference

Searle,John R.: 'Rationality in Action' [MIT 2001], p.293

A Reaction

I don't see why you shouldn't assert the supervenience of one thing on another, while saying that you are not sure whether it is causal or constitutive. The confusion seems to me to be in understandings of the causal version.