more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 5456

[filed under theme 8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 12. Denial of Properties ]

Full Idea

Redness is not a property, because it has no mind-independent existence.

Gist of Idea

Redness is not a property as it is not mind-independent

Source

Brian Ellis (The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism [2002], Ch.3)

Book Ref

Ellis,Brian: 'The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism' [Acumen 2002], p.43


A Reaction

Well said. Secondary qualities are routinely cited in discussions of properties, and they shouldn't be. Redness causes nothing to happen in the physical world, unless a consciousness experiences it.


The 41 ideas from 'The Philosophy of Nature: new essentialism'

Kripke and others have made essentialism once again respectable [Ellis]
For 'passivists' behaviour is imposed on things from outside [Ellis]
Essentialists regard inanimate objects as genuine causal agents [Ellis]
For essentialists two members of a natural kind must be identical [Ellis]
'Individual essences' fix a particular individual, and 'kind essences' fix the kind it belongs to [Ellis]
'Real essence' makes it what it is; 'nominal essence' makes us categorise it a certain way [Ellis]
Metaphysical necessities are true in virtue of the essences of things [Ellis]
Essential properties are usually quantitatively determinate [Ellis]
Nearly all fundamental properties of physics are dispositional [Ellis]
Redness is not a property as it is not mind-independent [Ellis]
Essentialists mostly accept the primary/secondary qualities distinction [Ellis]
Predicates assert properties, values, denials, relations, conventions, existence and fabrications [Ellis, by PG]
Causal relations cannot be reduced to regularities, as they could occur just once [Ellis]
Essentialists say dispositions are basic, rather than supervenient on matter and natural laws [Ellis]
The essence of uranium is its atomic number and its electron shell [Ellis]
For essentialists, laws of nature are metaphysically necessary, being based on essences of natural kinds [Ellis]
Essentialists believe causation is necessary, resulting from dispositions and circumstances [Ellis]
Primary qualities are number, figure, size, texture, motion, configuration, impenetrability and (?) mass [Ellis]
Properties are 'dispositional', or 'categorical' (the latter as 'block' or 'intrinsic' structures) [Ellis, by PG]
The passive view of nature says categorical properties are basic, but others say dispositions [Ellis]
Essentialism says natural kinds are fundamental to nature, and determine the laws [Ellis]
Natural kinds are of objects/substances, or events/processes, or intrinsic natures [Ellis]
The laws of nature imitate the hierarchy of natural kinds [Ellis]
Laws of nature tend to describe ideal things, or ideal circumstances [Ellis]
We must explain the necessity, idealisation, ontology and structure of natural laws [Ellis]
The whole of our world is a natural kind, so all worlds like it necessarily have the same laws [Ellis]
Imagination tests what is possible for all we know, not true possibility [Ellis]
Essentialists say natural laws are in a new category: necessary a posteriori [Ellis]
One thing can look like something else, without being the something else [Ellis]
Scientific essentialists say science should define the limits of the possible [Ellis]
Essentialists deny possible worlds, and say possibilities are what is compatible with the actual world [Ellis]
Possible worlds realism is only needed to give truth conditions for modals and conditionals [Ellis]
Properties have powers; they aren't just ways for logicians to classify objects [Ellis]
Essentialism says metaphysics can't be done by analysing unreliable language [Ellis]
Emeralds are naturally green, and only an external force could turn them blue [Ellis]
Essentialists don't infer from some to all, but from essences to necessary behaviour [Ellis]
Regularity theories of causation cannot give an account of human agency [Ellis]
Humans have variable dispositions, and also power to change their dispositions [Ellis]
Essentialism fits in with Darwinism, but not with extreme politics of left or right [Ellis]
A general theory of causation is only possible in an area if natural kinds are involved [Ellis]
Essentialism requires a clear separation of semantics, epistemology and ontology [Ellis]