Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front. Philos. China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (2) : 250-262     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-005-016-0019-7
Orginal Article |
What Is Not So Fine with Fine’s Critique of the Modal Account of Essence
HE Chaoan()
School of Humanities, Donghua University, Shanghai 201620, China
Download: PDF(233 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The invention of contemporary model theories of quantified modal logic gives substance to the modal account of essence. Kit Fine developed an incisive argument against the modal account. It is argued here that the Finean counterexamples all rest on a certain consideration of irrelevance and the challenge could be met in a uniform way. There is a distinction to be drawn between epistemological identification essence and metaphysical identity essence. The former accommodates the intuitive appeal of the Finean cases and the latter grounds the feasibility of the modal account. An object-reflexive method is introduced to rephrase the counterexamples and to rehabilitate the otherwise inscrutable metaphysical relevance.

Keywords essence      modal account      relevance      identity     
Issue Date: 21 July 2016
 Cite this article:   
HE Chaoan. What Is Not So Fine with Fine’s Critique of the Modal Account of Essence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 250-262.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-005-016-0019-7
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2016/V11/I2/250
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
HE Chaoan
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Thalia Wheatley, Terence Horgan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 349-360.
[2] Terence Horgan. Seventy Years in Philosophy of Mind: An Overview, with Emphasis on the Issue of Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 300-331.
[3] DONG Zili. Causal Relevance of Mental Properties: A Refutation of Kim’s Exclusion Argument[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(4): 633-647.
[4] YANG Tongjin. Is There an Identity Crisis in Environmental Ethics?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(2): 195-206.
[5] Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
[6] LUO Songtao. Adorno’s View of Life[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(3): 444-456.
[7] Cockburn David. Love and Identity: Unconditional Concern and Particularity[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(4): 655-669.
[8] LUO Songtao. Art and Society in Light of Adorno’s Non-Identity Philosophy[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 349-361.
[9] ZHANG Lifeng. Comments on Plantinga’s Argument of Transworld Identity[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(1): 164-178.
[10] HAN Zhen , . Some Remarks on the Re-building of the Category of Essence and the Reflective Modernity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2010, 5(1): 134-141.
[11] ZHANG Shiying. The double meanings of “essence”: The natural and humane sciences — A tentative linkage of Hegel, Dilthey, and Husserl[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(1): 143-155.
[12] LI Xiaowu, WEN Xuefeng. Plausibility, necessity and identity: A logic of relative plausibility*[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 629-644.
[13] DUAN Dezhi. Aquinas’ transcendences to Aristotle in the doctrine of essence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 572-582.
[14] Yang Geng, Zhang Qixue. The essence, characteristics and limitation of post-colonialism: from Karl Marx’s point of view[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2006, 1(2): 279-294.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed