more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
We understand a defined object (what it is) through the objects on which it depends.
Gist of Idea
We understand things through their dependency relations
Source
Kit Fine (Ontological Dependence [1995], II)
Book Ref
-: 'Aristotelian Society' [], p.275
A Reaction
This places dependency relations right at the heart of our understanding of the world, and hence shifts traditional metaphysics away from existence and identity. The notion of explanation is missing from Fine's account.
Related Idea
Idea 14250 Metaphysics deals with the existence of things and with the nature of things [Fine,K]
| 14253 | An object's 'being' isn't existence; there's more to an object than existence, and its nature doesn't include existence [Fine,K] |
| 14251 | A natural modal account of dependence says x depends on y if y must exist when x does [Fine,K] |
| 14252 | We should understand identity in terms of the propositions it renders true [Fine,K] |
| 14250 | Metaphysics deals with the existence of things and with the nature of things [Fine,K] |
| 14255 | We understand things through their dependency relations [Fine,K] |
| 14256 | How do we distinguish basic from derived esssences? [Fine,K] |
| 14254 | Dependency is the real counterpart of one term defining another [Fine,K] |
| 14257 | An object depends on another if the second cannot be eliminated from the first's definition [Fine,K] |
| 14261 | There is 'weak' dependence in one definition, and 'strong' dependence in all the definitions [Fine,K] |
| 14258 | Maybe some things have essential relationships as well as essential properties [Fine,K] |
| 14260 | An object only essentially has a property if that property follows from every definition of the object [Fine,K] |
| 14259 | Maybe two objects might require simultaneous real definitions, as with two simultaneous terms [Fine,K] |