more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
I am no fan of the concept of supervenience. Its uncritical use is a sign of philosophical confusion, because the concept oscillates between causal supervenience and constitutive supervenience.
Gist of Idea
Users of 'supervenience' blur its causal and constitutive meanings
Source
John Searle (Rationality in Action [2001], Ch.9 n5)
Book Ref
Searle,John R.: 'Rationality in Action' [MIT 2001], p.293
A Reaction
I don't see why you shouldn't assert the supervenience of one thing on another, while saying that you are not sure whether it is causal or constitutive. The confusion seems to me to be in understandings of the causal version.
| 3841 | Users of 'supervenience' blur its causal and constitutive meanings [Searle] |
| 2315 | Mereological supervenience says wholes are fixed by parts [Kim] |
| 3991 | Where pixels make up a picture, supervenience is reduction [Lewis] |
| 16052 | 'Superdupervenience' is supervenience that has a robustly materialistic explanation [Horgan,T] |
| 16053 | 'Global' supervenience is facts tracking varying physical facts in every possible world [Horgan,T] |
| 2393 | Logical supervenience is when one set of properties must be accompanied by another set [Chalmers] |
| 2394 | Natural supervenience is when one set of properties is always accompanied by another set [Chalmers] |
| 11055 | Supervenience can add covariation, upward dependence, and nomological connection [Hanna] |
| 16047 | Weak supervenience is in one world, strong supervenience in all possible worlds [Bennett,K] |