back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 13745

[from 'Postscripts on supervenience' by Jaegwon Kim, in 7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 5. Supervenience / c. Significance of supervenience ]

Full Idea

It is a mistake, or at least misleading, to think of supervenience itself as a special and distinctive type of dependence relation, alongside causal dependence, mereological dependence, semantic dependence, and others.

Gist of Idea

Supervenience is not a dependence relation, on the lines of causal, mereological or semantic dependence

Source

Jaegwon Kim (Postscripts on supervenience [1993], 2)

Book Reference

Kim,Jaegwon: 'Supervenience and Mind' [CUP 1993], p.167


A Reaction

The point, I take it, is that supervenience is something which requires explanation, rather than being a conclusion to the debate. Why are statues beautiful? Why do brains generate minds?

Related Idea

Idea 13746 Supervenience is just a 'surface' relation of pattern covariation, which still needs deeper explanation [Kim]