Repository logo
Log in(current)
Repository logoMIT Open ScholarshipDSpace@MIT
  1. Home
  2. MIT Open Access Articles
  3. MIT Open Access Articles
  4. Essence and Necessity

Essence and Necessity

Thumbnail Image
Download
Name

10992_2021_9646_ReferencePDF.pdf

Size

1.06 MB

Format

Adobe PDF

Checksum (MD5)

facef87d1407cd91e29a78e4e3e5bcb4

Download all files submitted through automated deposit
art_5112415726758685813.zip (729.64 KB)
Author(s)
Ditter, Andreas
Date Issued
January 22, 2022
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Citation
Ditter, Andreas. 2022. "Essence and Necessity."
Version
Author's final manuscript
Abstract
Abstract What is the relation between metaphysical necessity and essence? This paper defends the view that the relation is one of identity: metaphysical necessity is a special case of essence. My argument consists in showing that the best joint theory of essence and metaphysical necessity is one in which metaphysical necessity is just a special case of essence. The argument is made against the backdrop of a novel, higher-order logic of essence (HLE), whose core features are introduced in the first part of the paper. The second part investigates the relation between metaphysical necessity and essence in the context of HLE. Reductive hypotheses are among the most natural hypotheses to be explored in the context of HLE. But they also have to be weighed against their non-reductive rivals. I investigate three different reductive hypotheses and argue that two of them fare better than their non-reductive rivals: they are simpler, more natural, and more systematic. Specifically, I argue that one candidate reduction, according to which metaphysical necessity is truth in virtue of the nature of all propositions, is superior to the others, including one proposed by Kit Fine, according to which metaphysical necessity is truth in virtue of the nature of all objects. The paper concludes by offering some reasons to think that the best joint theory of essence and metaphysical necessity is one in which the logic of metaphysical necessity includes S4, but not S5.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use.
Persistent DSpace Link
https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/142848
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09646-0
Repository logo
PrivacyPermissionsAccessibilityContact us
Repository logo
Notify us about copyright concerns.