more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 15732

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 11. Properties as Sets ]

Full Idea

The usual objection to taking properties as sets is that different properties may happen to be coextensive. Creatures with hearts are creatures with kidneys. Talking donkeys are flying pigs (since there are none). Yet the properties differ.

Gist of Idea

Properties don't seem to be sets, because different properties can have the same set

Source

David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 1.5)

Book Ref

Lewis,David: 'On the Plurality of Worlds' [Blackwell 2001], p.51


A Reaction

This is the difficulty which Lewis proposes to solve by defining properties across possible situations as well as actual ones, so that the properties can come apart. Nice move.


The 22 ideas with the same theme [properties are just classes of certain objects]:

When we attribute a common quality to a group, we can forget the quality and just talk of the group [Russell]
Russell refuted Frege's principle that there is a set for each property [Russell, by Sorensen]
Properties are the respects in which objects resemble, which places them in classes [Martin,CB]
Properties and relations are discovered, so they can't be mere sets of individuals [Ellis]
Treating predicates as sets drops the predicate for a new predicate 'is a member of', which is no help [Davidson]
While no two classes coincide in membership, there are distinct but coextensive attributes [Cartwright,R]
The property of being F is identical with the set of objects, in all possible worlds, which are F [Lewis, by Cameron]
Properties don't seem to be sets, because different properties can have the same set [Lewis]
Accidentally coextensive properties come apart when we include their possible instances [Lewis]
If a property is relative, such as being a father or son, then set membership seems relative too [Lewis]
Trilateral and triangular seem to be coextensive sets in all possible worlds [Lewis]
It would be easiest to take a property as the set of its instances [Lewis]
A property is the set of its actual and possible instances [Lewis, by Oliver]
I believe in properties, which are sets of possible individuals [Lewis]
A property is any class of possibilia [Lewis]
Properties are sets of their possible instances (which separates 'renate' from 'cordate') [Lewis, by Mellor/Oliver]
Properties are classes of possible and actual concrete particulars [Lewis, by Koslicki]
If classes can't be eliminated, and they are property combinations, then properties (universals) can't be either [Jacquette]
Properties have causal roles which sets can't possibly have [Heil]
Logicians use 'property' and 'set' interchangeably, with little hanging on it [Shapiro]
Construct properties as sets of objects, or say an object must be in the set to have the property [Linsky,B]
The best-known candidate for an identity condition for properties is necessary coextensiveness [Swoyer]