more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 8589

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 5. Natural Properties ]

Full Idea

The reason natural properties feature in the contents of our attitudes is that naturalness is part of what it is to feature therein. We aren't built to take a special interest in natural properties, or that we call them natural if they are interesting.

Gist of Idea

For us, a property being natural is just an aspect of its featuring in the contents of our attitudes

Source

David Lewis (New work for a theory of universals [1983], 'Cont of L')

Book Ref

'Properties', ed/tr. Mellor,D.H. /Oliver,A [OUP 1997], p.227


A Reaction

Evolution never features in Lewis's metaphysics. I would have thought we were very much built to focus on natural properties. This sounds odd, and gives no help in distinguishing natural properties from all our other daft contents.


The 30 ideas with the same theme [properties which constitute the natural world]:

For Aristotle, there are only as many properties as actually exist [Aristotle, by Jacquette]
Physical properties are those relevant to how a physical system might act [Ellis]
There is no property of 'fragility', as things are each fragile in a distinctive way [Ellis]
The naturalness of a class depends as much on the observers as on the objects [Quinton]
Properties imply natural classes which can be picked out by everybody [Quinton]
Genuine properties are closely related to genuine changes [Shoemaker]
Properties must be essentially causal if we can know and speak about them [Shoemaker]
To ascertain genuine properties, examine the object directly [Shoemaker]
Humeans see predicates as independent, but science says they are connected [Harré/Madden]
Natural properties give similarity, joint carving, intrinsicness, specificity, homogeneity... [Lewis]
We can't define natural properties by resemblance, if they are used to explain resemblance [Lewis]
Defining natural properties by means of laws of nature is potentially circular [Lewis]
I don't take 'natural' properties to be fixed by the nature of one possible world [Lewis]
We might try defining the natural properties by a short list of them [Lewis]
Sparse properties rest either on universals, or on tropes, or on primitive naturalness [Lewis, by Maudlin]
I assume there could be natural properties that are not instantiated in our world [Lewis]
Natural properties figure in the analysis of similarity in intrinsic respects [Lewis, by Oliver]
Lewisian natural properties fix reference of predicates, through a principle of charity [Lewis, by Hawley]
Objects are demarcated by density and chemistry, and natural properties belong in what is well demarcated [Lewis]
Reference partly concerns thought and language, partly eligibility of referent by natural properties [Lewis]
Natural properties tend to belong to well-demarcated things, typically loci of causal chains [Lewis]
For us, a property being natural is just an aspect of its featuring in the contents of our attitudes [Lewis]
All perfectly natural properties are intrinsic [Lewis, by Lewis]
Natural properties fix resemblance and powers, and are picked out by universals [Lewis]
'Being physical' is a second-order property [Molnar]
Functionalists in Fodor's camp usually say that a genuine property is one that figures in some causal laws [Heil]
There are only first-order properties ('red'), and none of higher-order ('coloured') [Swoyer]
Scientific properties are defined by the laws that embody them [Psillos, by Ladyman/Ross]
A property is fundamental if two objects can differ in only that respect [Maudlin]
Causal essentialism says properties are nothing but causal relations [Ladyman/Ross]