DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Dongwoo | ko |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-12T22:00:10Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-12T22:00:10Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2023-12-06 | - |
dc.date.created | 2023-12-06 | - |
dc.date.created | 2023-12-06 | - |
dc.date.created | 2023-12-06 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-05 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | ERKENNTNIS | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0165-0106 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10203/318543 | - |
dc.description.abstract | I shall discuss some of the relations among metaphysical modality, essence, and explanation. Marion Godman, Antonella Mallozzi and David Papineau have recently argued that the essence of a kind consists in its super-explanatory property-a single property that is causally responsible for a multitude of commonalities shared by the instances of the kind. And they argue that this super-explanatory account of essence offers a principled account of aposteriori necessities concerning kinds. I shall examine their arguments and argue that they are fallacious. Along the way, a general problem will also emerge that applies to any account that tries to explicate the notion of essence in terms of an explanatory relation. | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.publisher | SPRINGER | - |
dc.title | Necessity, Essence, and Explanation | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000986112600001 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85159134702 | - |
dc.type.rims | ART | - |
dc.citation.publicationname | ERKENNTNIS | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s10670-023-00691-6 | - |
dc.contributor.localauthor | Kim, Dongwoo | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.type.journalArticle | Article; Early Access | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.