more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
One intuitive gloss on 'intrinsic' property is that a property is intrinsic iff whether or not a thing has it depends entirely on how things stand with it and its parts, and not on its relation to some distinct thing.
Gist of Idea
An 'intrinsic' property is one that depends on a thing and its parts, and not on its relations
Source
Gideon Rosen (Metaphysical Dependence [2010], 02)
Book Ref
'Modality', ed/tr. Hale,B/Hoffman,A [OUP 2010], p.112
A Reaction
He offers this as a useful reward for reviving 'depends on' in metaphysical talk. The problem here would be to explain the 'thing' and its 'parts' without mentioning the target property. The thing certainly can't be a bundle of tropes.
14092 | Philosophers are often too fussy about words, dismissing perfectly useful ordinary terms [Rosen] |
14093 | An 'intrinsic' property is one that depends on a thing and its parts, and not on its relations [Rosen] |
14094 | The excellent notion of metaphysical 'necessity' cannot be defined [Rosen] |
14095 | Facts are structures of worldly items, rather like sentences, individuated by their ingredients [Rosen] |
14096 | Explanations fail to be monotonic [Rosen] |
14097 | Things could be true 'in virtue of' others as relations between truths, or between truths and items [Rosen] |
14100 | Figuring in the definition of a thing doesn't make it a part of that thing [Rosen] |
14099 | 'Bachelor' consists in or reduces to 'unmarried' male, but not the other way around [Rosen] |
14098 | An acid is just a proton donor [Rosen] |
14101 | Are necessary truths rooted in essences, or also in basic grounding laws? [Rosen] |