more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 7031

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 6. Categorical Properties ]

Full Idea

David Lewis has produced an important theory of properties as sets of actual and possible objects.

Gist of Idea

Lewis says properties are sets of actual and possible objects

Source

report of David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983]) by John Heil - From an Ontological Point of View §12.2

Book Ref

Heil,John: 'From an Ontological Point of View' [OUP 2005], p.128


A Reaction

The notion that a property is an 'object' sounds wrong, as it is too passive. It also seems to allow for the possibility of uninstantiated properties existing, where properties are presumably always 'of' something.


The 29 ideas with the same theme [actualised properties, rather than conditional ones]:

Some things said 'of' a subject are not 'in' the subject [Aristotle]
We call them secondary 'substances' because they reveal the primary substances [Aristotle]
Even if all properties are categorical, they may be denoted by dispositional predicates [Armstrong, by Bird]
Armstrong holds that all basic properties are categorical [Armstrong, by Ellis]
I support categorical properties, although most people only want causal powers [Ellis]
Essentialism needs categorical properties (spatiotemporal and numerical relations) and dispositions [Ellis]
Spatial, temporal and numerical relations have causal roles, without being causal [Ellis]
The passive view of nature says categorical properties are basic, but others say dispositions [Ellis]
Typical 'categorical' properties are spatio-temporal, such as shape [Ellis]
The property of 'being an electron' is not of anything, and only electrons could have it [Ellis]
Resemblance or similarity is the core of our concept of a property [Kim]
The distinction between dispositional and 'categorical' properties leads to confusion [Lewis]
Lewis says properties are sets of actual and possible objects [Lewis, by Heil]
Any class of things is a property, no matter how whimsical or irrelevant [Lewis]
'Categorical properties' are those which are not powers [Molnar]
If reality just has relational properties, what are its substantial ontological features? [Robinson,H]
A stone does not possess the property of being a stone; its other properties make it a stone [Heil]
Categorical properties were introduced by philosophers as actual properties, not if-then properties [Heil]
Properties are respects in which particular objects may be alike or differ [Mellor/Oliver]
Categorical properties and dispositions appear to explain one another [Mumford]
There are four reasons for seeing categorical properties as the most fundamental [Mumford]
Categorical predicates are those unconnected to functions [Mumford]
Proper ontology should only use categorical (actual) properties, not hypothetical ones [Sider]
Categorical properties are not modally fixed, but change across possible worlds [Bird]
The categoricalist idea is that a property is only individuated by being itself [Bird]
If we abstractly define a property, that doesn't mean some object could possess it [Bird]
Categoricalists take properties to be quiddities, with no essential difference between them [Bird]
'Categorical' properties exist in the actual world, and 'hypothetical' properties in other worlds [Koslicki]
17th century authors only recognised categorical properties, never dispositions [Pasnau]