Powers are popularly assumed to be distinct from, and dependent upon, inert qualities, mainly because it is believed that qualities have their nature independently of other properties while powers have their nature in virtue of a relation to distinct manifestation property. George Molnar and Alexander Bird, on the other hand, characterize powers as intrinsic and relational. The difficulties of reconciling the characteristics of being intrinsic and at the same time essentially related are illustrated in this paper and it is (...) argued that the reasons for thinking of powers as essentially relational are based on misguided epistemological consideration. Finally, I present a way of thinking of fundamental properties as primitive natures that we can only understand in virtue of what they do but which we should not think of as being ontologically constituted by these doings. According to this view, properties are both qualities and powers. (shrink)

This paper defines relational properties and argues for their reducibility in a, broadly speaking, Armstrongian framework of state of affairs ontology and truthmaking. While Armstrong’s own characterisation and reduction of them arguably is the best one available in the literature of this framework, it suffers from two main problems. As will be shown, it neither defines relational properties very clearly (if at all), nor provides an adequate conception of their reduction. This paper attempts to remedy this situation in four (...) steps. First, it introduces relational properties and why they matter in metaphysics in general. Second, by briefly comparing and contrasting them with extrinsic properties, and by briefly mapping them onto a tripartite division of relations, the particular kinds of relevant relational properties are identified. Third, it classifies relational properties and thereby makes possible an apt definition of them. Finally, using the notion of truthmaking, it outlines a more satisfactory case for their reduction. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In ‘Properties, Propositions, and Conditionals’ Field [2021] advances further on our understanding of the logic and meaning of naive theories – theories that maintain, in the face of paradox, basic assumptions about properties and propositions. His work follows in a tradition going back over 40 years now, of using Kripke fixed-point model constructions to show how naive schemas can be (Post) consistent, as long as one embeds in a non-classical logic. A main issue in all this research is (...) the question of finding a suitable conditional for the naive schemas, an implication connective that is well-behaved enough to be useful but weak enough to maintain coherence when there are paradoxes in the surrounding aether. Field takes several cues from the exemplary work of Ross Brady. Brady's work is predominantly concerned with models for naive theories in relevant logic. Field's considered view is that ‘relevant conditionals are just the wrong tool for naive theories’ [ibid.: 140]. In this note, I reply that a relevant conditional is an indispensable tool for at least one very important job: giving identity conditions for properties. (shrink)

This article examines Kant’s theory of property through a comparative analysis of Gottfried Achenwall’s justification of ownership rights. I argue that at the core of Achenwall’s and Kant’s understanding of ownership rights lies the idea that rights are to be acquired through a juridical act (factum iuridicum, rechtlichen Act) of the will. However, while Achenwall thinks of this act as emerging from a private will, Kant holds that rights and obligations can only be brought about by an act of (...) the general will. By contrasting these two views, I aim to illuminate one of the main features of Kant’s theory of property, namely, that ownership rights are only possible in a rightfully constituted state. I conclude with a suggestion regarding Kant’s view of the notion of ‘provisional’ possession in the state of nature. (shrink)

The subjective properties of an experience are those which specify what having the experience is like for its subject. The sensational properties of an experience are those of its subjective properties that it does not possess in virtue of features of the way the experience represents the world as being (its representational content). Perhaps no topic in the philosophy of mind has been more vigorously debated in the past quarter-century than whether there are any sensational properties, so conceived. The existence (...) or otherwise of sensational properties is pivotal in assessing functionalism, representationalism, and many other conceptions of mental states and the nature of our ability to think about them. Instead of engaging in extended sentence- by-sentence dissection of these many discussions, I hope that the theses I formulate will, taken together, comprise a positive conception of sensational properties that can be drawn upon in assessing those debates. My main aim is to articulate that conception. (shrink)

The paper discusses whether there are strictly inexpressible properties. Three main points are argued for: (i) Two different senses of ‘predicate t expresses property p ’ should be distinguished. (ii) The property of being a predicate that does not apply to itself is inexpressible in one of the senses of ‘express’, but not in the other. (iii) Since the said property is related to Grelling’s Antinomy, it is further argued that the antinomy does not imply the (...) non-existence of that property. (shrink)

For the last several decades, dispositional properties have been one of the main topics in metaphysics. Still, however, there is little agreement among contemporary metaphysicians on the nature of dispositional properties. Apparently, though, the majority of them have reached the consensus that dispositional ascriptions cannot be analysed in terms of simple counterfactual conditionals. In this paper it will be brought to light that this consensus is wrong. Specifically, I will argue that the simple conditional analysis of dispositions, which is (...) generally thought to be dead, is in fact an adequate analysis of dispositions. I will go on to discuss Mumford’s view of dispositions from the perspective of the simple conditional analysis of dispositions. (shrink)

This paper has two main aims. The first is to present a general approach for understanding “dispositional” and “categorical” properties; the second aim is to use this approach to criticize Russellian Monism. On the approach I suggest, what are usually thought of as “dispositional” and “categorical” properties are really just the extreme ends of a spectrum of options. The approach allows for a number of options between these extremes, and it is plausible, I suggest, that just about everything of (...) scientific interest falls in this middle ground. I argue that Russellian Monism depends for its plausibility on the unarticulated assumption that there are no properties in the middle ground. (shrink)

Kaarlo Tuori’s latest book aims to provide an examination of modern law’s main properties – as he puts it, a ‘legal-theoretical recapitulation’. Three properties in particular characterise modern l...

Properties of Law is a legal-theoretical analysis about modern state law; about sociality, normativity and plurality as its properties, and what will come after modern state law. The main objective of this study is to offer a legal theoretical recapitulation of modern state law that avoids the fallacies of Legal Positivism. This calls for a relationist approach where law's sociality is related to normativity, and normativity to sociality. Avoiding Legal Positivism's fallacies also includes refraining from extrapolating from modern state (...) law to law in general; replacing Legal Positivism's conceptual universalism with sensitivity to the varieties of law, and acknowledging that law existed before modern state law, that it will exist after modern state law, and that other law exists alongside modern state law. The book concludes with a discussion of the impact of digitalization on law. (shrink)

This chapter uses the main principle to explain why economic rights should be regarded as human rights. Property rights, contract rights, and other economic rights are a solution to the productive investment CAP. Property and contract rights are not defined a priori, but should be defined in a way that they will, as a practice, do the best job of equitably promoting life prospects. The chapter uses the main principle to explain the moral appropriateness of the (...) contours of property rights to both tangible and intangible property; exceptions to contracts, including unconscionability, implied warranties, strict liability, mandatory disclosure, bankruptcy; the replacement of caveat emptor with caveat venditor in win-win contracts; market economies; negative income tax; voluntary consent to economic and other transactions; prohibitions on slavery contracts; minimum wage legislation. The chapter contrasts his account with fair starting-point theories of justice, including Ronald Dworkin’s theory. He also contrasts his account with Richard Posner’s account of the common law in terms of economic efficiency. (shrink)

The orthodoxy on the concept of ownership is given by Honoré's list of incidents. The idea this portrays is as ownership as a very flexible concept. The main purpose of this paper is to argue that the concept of property has much more integrity than the notion of a bundle of incidents may suggest. The Libertarian Challenge claims that redistributive theories of Justice, in so far as they impose involuntary taxes, are inconsistent with property rights, and are (...) therefore unjustifiable. One response to the libertarian challenge is to present alternative conceptions of ownership that are based on less than the complete list of incidents. These conceptions, we are told, avoid the inconsistency inherent in redistributive taxation by rejecting the incidents that are the source of the inconsistency, while retaining the moral appeal by leaving in place the core incidents and thus remaining faithful to what is primarily justifiable in property rights. Such an approach has been taken by several writers (notably, Waldron, Christman, and Fried). These different attempts to present a "truncated", "bifurcated", or "purist" concept of property invariably fail. Taxation must be an infringement of property. The upshot of this is that a justification of redistributive taxation requires a restriction of property or abandoning it altogether rather than redefining it. (shrink)

Any system for the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has three main kinds of distributive effects. It will determine or influence: (a) the types of objects that will be developed and for which IPRs will be sought; (b) the differential access various people will have to these objects; and (c) the distribution of the IPRs themselves among various actors. What this means to the area of pharmaceutical research is that many urgently needed medicines will not be developed (...) at all, that the existing medicines will not be suitable for countries with a precarious health infrastructure or not target the disease variety that is prevalent in poorer regions. Such effects are commonly captured under the rubric of the “10/90 gap” in biomedical research. High prices will also restrict access to medicines as well endanger compliance to treatment schemes. IPRs are mainly held by multinational corporations situated in the developed world, which not only raises egalitarian concerns, but also severely limits the possibilities of companies in poorer countries to realize improvements on existing inventions, as they cannot financially afford to secure freedom to operate, which systematically shrinks the number of potential innovators. Those inequities lead to an enormous burden for the global poor and since no institution is willing to assume the responsibility to fulfil the right to health and the corresponding right of access to essential medicines, we have to analyse alternatives or additions to the actual intellectual property regimes in order to create new incentives to fill this gap. (shrink)

In this volume, fourteen philosophers, economists and legal scholars and one computer scientist address various facets of the same question: under which conditions (if any) can intellectual property rights be fair? This general question unfolds in a variety of others: What are the parallels and differences between intellectual and real property? Are libertarian theories especially sympathetic to IP rights? Should Rawlsian support copyright? How can a concern for incentives be taken into account by each of the main (...) theories of justice? What's exactly wrong with free-riding, when dealing with non-rival goods? This requires a close examination of a variety of specific issues such as peer-to-peer file sharing, access to vital medicines, the interaction between copyright and freedom of expression, patents on genes, etc. It also involves bringing together state-of-the-art knowledge on legal, economic and technical issues with the most advanced state of our normative theories. (shrink)

The impending missions to exploit natural resources of celestial bodies may at some point start interfering with the scientific interests, including those of astrobiology, in these bodies. While the legal status of celestial bodies at the highest level is clear, uncertainty has arisen as to the extent private property rights over such objects or over their resources are legally acceptable, legally impossible, or potentially legal. This also provides for a considerable amount of uncertainty regarding how the legal framework could (...) or may need to be changed to accommodate private interests. The article analyzes the two main international treaties relevant from this perspective, as well as their backgrounds, in order to outline the current legal status of celestial bodies and the resulting legal rights and obligations pertinent to both private exploitation and exploration. Based on such an analysis, it concludes by highlighting an approach that could actually incentivize the private sector and the science community to work together in a manner conducive to their interests in exploitation and exploration respectively. (shrink)

After some suggestions about how to clarify the confused metaphysical distinctions between dispositional and non-dispositional or categorical properties, I review some of the main interpretations of QM in order to show that – with the relevant exception of Bohm’s minimalist interpretation – quantum ontology is irreducibly dispositional. Such an irreducible character of dispositions must be explained differently in different interpretations, but the reducibility of the contextual properties in the case of Bohmian mechanics is guaranteed by the fact that the (...) positions of particles play the role of the categorical basis, a role that in other interpretations cannot be filled by anything else. In Bohr’s and Everett-type interpretations, dispositionalism is instrumentalism in disguise. (shrink)

In this paper, we study the notion of arborescent ordered sets, a generalizationof the notion of tree-property for cardinals. This notion was already studied previously in the case of directed sets. Our main result gives a geometric condition for an order to be ℵ0-arborescent.

John Rawls says: “The main problem of distributive justice is the choice of a social system.” Property-owning democracy is the social system that Rawls thought best realized the requirements of his principles of justice. This article discusses Rawls’s conception of property-owning democracy and how it is related to his difference principle. I explain why Rawls thought that welfare-state capitalism could not fulfill his principles: it is mainly because of the connection he perceived between capitalism and utilitarianism.

THE MAIN OBJECTIVES of the following discussions are, first, to show the logical inconsistency of Hegel’s theory of the necessity of private property and, second, to show its exegetical inconsistency with the most plausible and consistent interpretations of Hegel’s theory of the self and its relation to the state in Ethical Life. I begin with the latter objective, by distinguishing three basic conceptions of the self that can be gleaned from various passages in the Philosophy of Right. I (...) suggest viable connections between each of these three conceptions and three respective interpretations of what I call the Hegelian requirement, i.e., that the individual be able to identify his personal interests and values with those of the state [141, 147, 147r, 151, 155].1 This can be understood as the requirement that the individual be capable of transcending certain limits of individuality in the service of broader and more inclusive political goals. I argue that Hegel’s theory of Personality and the requirements of Ethical Life in the state commit him to a conception of the self as capable of achieving such selftranscendence through action, despite appearances to the contrary that suggest that self-transcendence is to be primarily achieved through acquisition of various kinds. I then try to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of Hegel’s theory of the necessity of private property. I argue that the fallacies inherent in his exposition of this theory can be explained by his presupposing a conception of the self which both is inadequate to meet the criteria of Hegel’s theories of Personality and Ethical Life and also, therefore, fails the Hegelian requirement. (shrink)

We develop a new notion of independence (þ-independence, read "thorn"-independence) that arises from a family of ranks suggested by Scanlon (þ-ranks). We prove that in a large class of theories (including simple theories and o-minimal theories) this notion has many of the properties needed for an adequate geometric structure. We prove that þ-independence agrees with the usual independence notions in stable, supersimple and o-minimal theories. Furthermore, we give some evidence that the equivalence between forking and þ-forking in simple theories might (...) be closely related to one of the main open conjectures in simplicity theory, the stable forking conjecture. In particular, we prove that in any simple theory where the stable forking conjecture holds. þ-independence and forking independence agree. (shrink)

Computer games are artifacts designed to exhibit forms of meaning to their players in response to their actions during play. The aim of this paper is to outline and examine main theoretical conceptions for how they perform this function. This chapter identifies three major conceptions of computer games that are implicit in much thinking about them: a nominalist, a representationalist and a ludic. It argues that the representationalist conception gives the wrong account of in-game player action and that the (...) ludic conception is unable to explain the manner in which a game system guides actions. As an alternative to all three conceptions the chapter proposes a motivational conception, according to which computer games are systems designed to support a special kind of autonomous in-game agential properties. It argues that the artistic potential of computer games is found in how they implement action types and goal attainment structures to be performed for their own sake. (shrink)

In the present paper we argue that besides four traditional methods of property acquisition – that is, homesteading, production, voluntary transfer and rectification of injustice – libertarianism also recognizes a fifth method, namely the method of accession. We contend that not only have some libertarian scholars implicitly embraced the accession principle, but also that if libertarianism wants to distribute exclusive ownership to indivisible things produced from inputs supplied by two or more parties without running into conflict with its own (...) principles of justice, it has to recognize accession as the fifth mode of appropriation. As the main thesis of the paper goes against the received view concerning the very core of libertarianism, that is, its methods of property acquisition, the text indicates some new developments within the libertarian theory of justice. (shrink)

In the target article “How molecules became signs” I offer a molecular “thought experiment” that provides a paradigm for resolving the major incompatibilities between biosemiotic and natural science accounts of living processes. To resolve these apparent incompatibilities I outline a plausible empirically testable model system that exemplifies the emergence of chemical processes exhibiting semiotic causal properties from basic nonliving chemical processes. This model system is described as an autogenic virus because of its virus-like form, but its nonparasitic self-repair and reproductive (...) dynamics. The 16 commentaries responding to this proposal recognize its material plausibility but are divided on its value in resolving this basic biosemiotic challenge. In response, I have addressed some of the most serious criticisms raised and have attempted to diagnose the major sources of incompatible assumptions that distinguish the autogenic paradigm from other major paradigms. In particular, I focus on four main issues: the significance of the shift from a cellular to a viral perspective, the relevance of intrinsic versus extrinsic initiation and channeling of interpretive work, the insufficiency of molecular replication as a basis for grounding biological semiosis, and a (universal?) three step scaffolding logic that enables referential displacement of sign vehicle properties without loss of referential continuity (as exemplified by DNA-protein relations). Although I can’t conclude that this is the only way that biosemiotic properties can emerge from physical-chemical relations that otherwise lack these properties, I contend that this approach offers a biologically plausible demonstration that it is possible. (shrink)

This paper is divided into two main sections. The first articulates what I believe Strawson's position to be. I contrast Strawson's usage of 'physicalism' with the mainstream use. I then explain why I think that Strawson's position is one of property dualism and substance monism. In doing this, I outline his view and Locke's view on the nature of substance. I argue that they are similar in many respects and thus it is no surprise that Strawson actually holds (...) a view on the mind much like one plausible interpretation of Locke's position. Strawson's use of terminology cloaks this fact and he does not himself explicitly recognize it in his paper. In the second section, I outline some of Strawson's assumptions that he uses in arguing for his position. I comment on the plausibility of his position concerning the relation of the mind to the body compared with mainstream physicalism and various forms of dualism. Before embarking on the two main sections, in the remainder of this introduction, I very briefly sketch Strawson's view. (shrink)

Hobbes treats individual property as regulated by stable law, yet dependent on the arbitrary will of the sovereign. In this paper I catalogue the different definitions of property present in his main political and legal works – The Elements of Law (1640), De Cive (1642, 2nd ed. 1647), Leviathan (1651) and A Dialogue between a philosopher and a student (1681) – with the aim of showing how he attempted to square those commitments. I record how the definitions (...) of property affect his views about how sovereigns hold property, the nature of the liability of subjects to having their property confiscated by the sovereign, and the legal conflicts that may arise between subjects and their rulers regarding such confiscations. (shrink)

The main focus of acquaintance theorists has been the nature and mechanism of perceptual acquaintance with particulars. Generally, one’s view of perceptual acquaintance with general features has taken its bearings from one’s view of perceptual acquaintance with particulars. This has led to the glossing over of significant differences in the mechanisms of perceptual acquaintance with particulars and with general features. The difference in mechanisms suggests a difference in the sort of epistemic state at play in the two kinds of (...) cases. While the existence of such a difference might initially seem to spell trouble for acquaintance theorists, it can be made palatable by being traced back to the distinct basic functions concepts of particulars and of general features serve in thought. (shrink)

Numerous philosophers are committed to fine-grained accounts of properties, propositions, and relations. One approach gaining traction in recent decades is the structuralist view, which claims that properties and propositions with distinct constituents are distinct. However, the Russell-Myhill paradox has been proposed as evidence that this view is inconsistent within higher-order logic. Based on the previous work of other philosophers, my article-based dissertation is dedicated to the conceptual foundation and mathematical implementation of a framework, called generativism, which aims to retain the (...) structuralist view and counter the paradox in a well-motivated way. -/- Generativism is grounded on the idea that structured entities are iteratively generated, thereby circumventing the paradox. According to this view, the universe of structured properties and propositions is never fully available, but continuously expands through a hierarchy of stages. The key aspect of my approach is advocating for a predicative turn in higher-order logic, suggesting that the quantifiers used when generating new entities should only range over entities available at each stage of the generative process. So, the main aim of my dissertation is to propose a more thoroughgoing study of predicativism in the context of structured properties and propositions. -/- I develop and discuss two mathematical implementations of these ideas. One is historically well-known in the logical and philosophical literature on predicativity: it is Russell's ramified theory of types. The other is Boolos' stage theory, which has received significant attention in the philosophy of set theory, but its applicability for structured propositions has been seriously underestimated. Ramified type theory is often deemed clunky and not explanatory, so my preferred approach for giving formal precision to generativism is the stage theory. The reason is that it provides greater flexibility, enhanced clarity, stronger theoretical justification, and a more streamlined framework, by bypassing the complications tied to ramified types and the use of modal operators, which are typical of potentialist views. (shrink)

The main claim of this paper is that, contrary to the received view, Ross’ doctrine of resultance does not provide a premise in favour of non-naturalism, but rather makes possible a viable form of non-reductionist naturalism. This is argued mainly by viewing resultance as constitution, where resultant properties are constituted by those natural properties from which they result. Accordingly, resultant properties and their constitutive properties can be viewed as placed in the same ontological realm. However, to rule out reductionism, (...) constitution is to be considered as not implying identity. Some arguments in favour of this view of constitution, above all in the moral realm, are presented in the last sections. (shrink)

Objective: The main purpose of this study was the psychometric assessment of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale among Iranian older population. Methods: Using a standard “forward-backward” translation procedure, the original English version of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale was translated into Persian. Internal consistency of the scale was checked by the Cronbach’s α coefficient. Convergent validity of the instrument was appraised by the Social Skills Scale and General Health Questionnaire. Factor structure of the Iranian version of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale and (...) possible interplay between its subscales were checked through recruiting a convenient sample of 300 Iranian older people and performing the confirmatory factor analysis. Findings: The estimated Cronbach’s α and intraclass correlation coefficients for the Iranian version of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale were in the vicinity of acceptable range, that is, 0.87 and 0.93, respectively. The output of confirmatory factor analysis revealed that a four-factor model best fitted the study data (χ2 = 323.49; df = 129; p < 0.001; comparative fit index = 0.913; Tucker–Lewis index = 0.901; root mean square error approximation = 0.074; standardized root mean square residual = 0.078). Rasch estimates of item difficulty ranged from –1.28 (less difficult) to 1.33 (more difficult). No significant cross-gender differences were observed regarding the Iranian version of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale’s items indicating its invariant psychometric properties for use in the Iranian men and women subgroups. Ethical Considertaion: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the Tabriz university of medical science. Informed consent, information confidentiality, and voluntary participation were guaranteed. Conclusion: The study findings were indicative of applicability of the Iranian version of Jacelon’s Attributed Dignity Scale as a reliable tool in measurement of the perceived social dignity among Iranian and probably other Persian-speaking older populations. (shrink)

abstract Demands for restitution of cultural artefacts and relics raise four main issues: 1) how claims to cultural property can be justified; 2) whether and under what conditions demands for restitution of cultural property are valid — especially when they are made long after the artefacts were taken away; 3) whether there are values, aesthetic, scholarly and educational, which can override restitution claims, even when these claims are legitimate; and 4) how these values bear on the question (...) of whether artefacts should be returned to their place of origin. I argue that a proper conception of cultural property emphasises the role that artefacts play in the practices and traditions of a collectivity. On the basis of this conception, some restitution claims can be defended as legitimate. However, many demands for restitution are not justified (including the Greek claim to the Parthenon Marbles). Moreover, a case for restitution can be more or less strong, and other considerations sometimes prevail over rights of cultural property. (shrink)

The topic of this dissertation are essential properties. The aim is to give an explication of the concept of essential properties in terms of the concept of metaphysical grounding. Along the way, the author proves several new results about formal theories of metaphysical grounding and develops a new hyperintensional theory of properties. Chapter 1 is the introduction of the thesis in which the author motivates the problem of explicating the concept of essential properties and gives adequacy criteria for a successful (...) explication tracing back to Carnap. The author discusses the orthodox explication of essential properties in terms of metaphysical necessity and Fine's objections to it. He goes on to develop a new ground-theoretic explication of essential properties in an informal way, where the basic idea is that a property is essential to an object if and only if the property is metaphysically grounded in the identity or haecceity of the object. The author argues informally that the new explication provides natural solutions to the problems raised by Fine and make it the goal for the rest of the dissertation to make the account formally precise. Chapter 2 focuses on a axiomatic theories of metaphysical grounding. In particular, the author develops a new formal approach to the relation of partial ground, i.e. the relation of one truth holding partially in virtue of another. The main novelty of the chapter is the use of a grounding predicate rather than an operator to formalize statements of (partial) ground. The author develops the new theory in formal detail as a first-order theory, proves its consistency, and shows that it's a conservative extension of the well-known theory of positive truth. Moreover, the author constructs a concrete model of the theory. Then, the author extends the framework with typed truth predicates, which allow us to make statements about the grounds and truth of statements about the truth of other sentences. Also this theory the author proves consistent and a conservative extension of the ramified theory of positive truth. A model construction extending the construction of the base theory is also given. Ultimately, the author discards the theory for the purpose of the dissertation, because of technical problems that arise when we try to develop a satisfactory explication of essential properties in the framework. The author leaves further development of the framework for future work and argues that further investigating could lead to interesting and fruitful discussion between formal theorists of truth and metaphysical theorists of grounding. Chapter 3 develops a logic of iterated ground, i.e. relations of ground between statements of ground, using the operator approach. The author first discusses certain conceptual distinctions in the context of metaphysical ground in general and iterated ground in particular. The author argues that different conceptions of iterated ground lead to different logics of iterated ground. He goes on to develop the logic of iterated ground based on the idea that if one truth is grounded in others, then it's these grounds that ground the statement of ground itself. This view traces back to remarks by de Rosset and Litland. The logic is developed in formal detail, both syntactically and semantically, and its formal properties are investigated. To conclude the chapter, the author discusses certain problems that arise when we're trying to prove a completeness result for the logic and sketches a way around them. In chapter 4, the author develops a new hyperintensional theory of properties, which can distinguish in natural, semantic terms between necessarily co-extensional but intuitively distinct properties. The theory is based on the idea that we can individuate properties by means of what the author calls "exemplification criteria" of an object for a property, roughly the states of affairs that if they obtain explain why the object has the property. The author develops this theory both formally and informally and discusses in detail how it achieves a natural distinction between necessarily co-extensional but intuitively distinct properties. Chapter 5 is the conclusion, where the author brings the results of chapter 3 and 4 to bear on the informal explication of essential properties in terms of metaphysical ground from the introduction. The author argues that together the iterated logic of ground from chapter 3 and the hyperintensional property theory of chapter 4 allow us to make the explication formally precise in a way that satisfies the adequacy criteria for a successful explication laid out by Carnap. The author concludes with a brief discussion of possible ways of extending the results of the dissertation in various ways. (shrink)

The paper deals with the semantics and ontology of ordinary discourse about properties. The main focus lies on the following thesis: A simple predication of the form ‘a is F’ is synonymous with the corresponding explicit property-attribution ‘a has F-ness’. An argument against this Synonymy Thesis is put forth which is based on the thesis that simple predications and property-attributions differ in their conditions of understanding. In defending the argument, the paper accounts for the way in which (...) we come to adopt the conceptual framework of properties. (shrink)

This book is both an introduction to and a research work on Meinongianism. “Meinongianism” is taken here, in accordance with the common philosophical jargon, as a general label for a set of theories of existence – probably the most basic notion of ontology. As an introduction, the book provides the first comprehensive survey and guide to Meinongianism and non-standard theories of existence in all their main forms. As a research work, the book exposes and develops the most up-to-date Meinongian (...) theory (called modal Meinongianism), applies it to specific fields, and discusses its open problems. Part I of the book provides a historical introduction to, and critical discussion of, the dominant philosophical view of existence: the “Kantian-Fregean-Quinean” perspective. Part II is the full-fledged introduction to the Meinongian theories of existence as a real property of individuals: after starting with the so-called naïve Meinongian conception and its problems, it provides a self-contained presentation of the main neo-Meinongian proposals, and a detailed discussion of their strengths and weaknesses. Part III develops a specific neo-Meinongian theory of existence employing a model-theoretic semantic framework. It discusses its application to the ontology and semantics of fictional objects, and its open problems. The methodology of the book follows the most recent trends in analytic ontology. In particular, the meta-ontological point of view is largely privileged. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate the claim that truth is a relational property. What does this claim really mean? What is its import?—Is it a basic feature of the concept of truth; or a distinctive feature of the correspondence theory of truth; or even both? After introducing some general ideas about truth, I begin by highlighting an ambiguity in current uses of the term ‘relational property’ in the truth debate, and show that we need to distinguish two separate (...) ideas: that truth is a relational property, and that truth is an extrinsic property. I go on to examine what both of these ideas are in more detail, and consider what would need to hold for truth to be in either of these categories. I then discern where all the main competitors in the truth debate stand on these issues. In doing so we learn more about these views and what they entail, and build a general picture of what stances different theories of truth take on whether truth is extrinsic or relational. Moreover, in doing this we will be able to answer one of the questions with which we began: whether truth’s being extrinsic or relational is something that, if accepted, lends support to the correspondence theory of truth. We will see that this is not so, and discern some interesting variations between various theories of truth on the issues of whether truth is extrinsic or relational. Following this we will be in a better position to judge whether the notions of extrinsicality or relationality are basic features of the concept of truth. In the final part of the paper I argue that, even if we are not in a position to conclude that they are basic features, they are features that any prospective theory of truth needs to take seriously. (shrink)

Andy Curzon replied (often quoting from the opening sections of Lester 2014, chapter 10) in an ongoing debate with Lee Waaks, which Mr Waaks forwarded (with approval) to the Libertarian Alliance Forum (27 February 2015). This response replies to the criticisms after directly quoting them (the indented text; except where Lester is occasionally quoted, as indicated). A few cuts have been made to avoid some repetition and irrelevance. However, just as Mr Curzon sometimes repeats his main points in slightly (...) different ways and contexts in the hope that some of them might prove cogent, so this reply does the same. The dialogue-like result seems to engage more directly and completely than producing a new stand-alone exposition. And some new arguments are even developed in the process. But the full nature of many of the criticisms and replies often only becomes clear as the “dialogue” proceeds. An addendum then rebuts two further brief critical responses in the same manner. (shrink)

The paper aims to develop a resemblance theory of properties that technically improves on past versions. The theory is based on a comparative resemblance predicate. In combination with other resources, it solves the various technical problems besetting resemblance nominalism. The paper’s second main aim is to indicate that previously proposed resemblance theories that solve the technical problems, including the comparative theory, are nominalistically unacceptable and have controversial philosophical commitments.

This paper is a contribution to the study of the rôle of disjunction inAlgebraic Logic. Several kinds of (generalized) disjunctions, usually defined using a suitable variant of the proof by cases property, were introduced and extensively studied in the literature mainly in the context of finitary logics. The goals of this paper are to extend these results to all logics, to systematize the multitude of notions of disjunction (both those already considered in the literature and those introduced in this (...) paper), and to show several interesting applications allowed by the presence of a suitable disjunction in a given logic. (shrink)

In 1908 the German mathematician Ernst Zermelo gave an axiomatization of the concept of set. His axioms remain at the core of what became to be known as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. There were two axioms that received diverse criticisms at the time: the axiom of choice and the axiom of separation. This paper centers around one question this latter axiom raised. The main purpose is to show how this question might be solved with the aid of another, more recent (...) mathematical theory of sets which, like Zermelo’s, has numerous philosophical underpinnings. Keywords: properties of sets, foundations of mathematics, axiom of separation, subobject classifier, truth values. (shrink)

Primary quality theories of color claim that colors are intrinsic, objective, mind-independent properties of external objects — that colors, like size and shape, are examples of the sort of properties moderns such as Boyle and Locke called primary qualities of body. 1 Primary quality theories have long been seen as one of the main philosophical options for understanding the nature of color.

The two main theses of are: (i) that persons possess an original, non-acquired right not to be precluded from making extra-personal material their own (or from exercising discretionary control over what they have made their own); and (ii) that this right can and does take the form of a right that others abide by the rules of a (justifiable) practice of property which facilitates persons making extra-personal material their own (and exercising discretionary control over what they have made (...) their own). I articulate some of the good reasons we have to affirm persons' possession of an original, non-acquired right of self-ownership and argue that the same good reasons support the ascription to persons of a natural right of property. I contrast an conception of the actions through which (initial) rights over extra-personal objects arise with a conception of (initial) entitlement-generating actions. I argue that the fact that the natural right to property can and does take the form of persons' rights that others abide by the rules of a (justifiable) practice of property explains how there are many instances of (initial) entitlement generation which are not plausibly explained by those wed to the inherent feature conception of entitlement-generating actions and why there is a strong conventional dimension in the procedures through which persons acquire (initial) property rights. (shrink)

In this paper, we present three main results on orthologics. Firstly, we give a sufficient condition for an orthologic to have variable separation property and show that the orthomodular logic has this property. Secondly, we show that the class of modular orthologics has an infinite descending chain. Finally we show that there exists a continuum of orthologics.

This paper examines the question whether, and to what extent, John Locke’s classic theory of property can be applied to the current debate involving intellectual property rights (IPRs) and the information commons. Organized into four main sections, Section 1 includes a brief exposition of Locke’s arguments for the just appropriation of physical objects and tangible property. In Section 2, I consider some challenges involved in extending Locke’s labor theory of property to the debate about IPRs (...) and digital information. In Section 3, it is argued that even if the labor analogy breaks down, we should not necessarily infer that Locke’s theory has no relevance for the contemporary debate involving IPRs and the information commons. Alternatively, I argue that much of what Locke has to say about the kinds of considerations that ought to be accorded to the physical commons when appropriating objects from it – especially his proviso requiring that “enough and as good” be left for others – can also be applied to appropriations involving the information commons. Based on my reading of Locke’s proviso, I further argue that Locke would presume in favor of the information commons when competing interests (involving the rights of individual appropriators and the preservation of the commons) are at stake. In this sense, I believe that Locke offers us an adjudicative principle for evaluating the claims advanced by rival interests in the contemporary debate about IPRs and the information commons. In Section 4, I apply Locke’s proviso in my analysis of two recent copyright laws: the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I then argue that both laws violate the spirit of Locke’s proviso because they unfairly restrict the access that ordinary individuals have previously had to resources that comprise the information commons. Noting that Locke would not altogether reject copyright protection for IPRs, I conclude that Locke’s classic property theory provides a useful mechanism for adjudicating between claims about how best to ensure that individuals will be able to continue to access information in digitized form, while at the same time also allowing for that information to enjoy some form of legal protection. (shrink)

It is well known that the history of philosophy develops in a path of revision, be it well justified or not, even of truths that have been steadfastly established for a long time. One of them, that existence should not be regarded as one of an object’s properties among others as was defined by Kant, had not been authoritatively revised up to the times when Alexius von Meinong and his followers (the latter occupying very significant positions in analytic philosophy today) (...) elaborated a very sophisticated theory called the theory of objects. In accordance with it, there are such mental objects that which can be regarded as both so-existing and nonexistent simultaneously and thereafter existence itself must be ranged among secondary, so-called extranuclear properties of objects (to which nuclear, i.e. essential ones should be contrasted), and this formula is sometimes read-in even in Kant’s verdict. Frictions of this conception of existence-and-nonexistence-as-properties with philosophical rationality are brought to light in this paper, and a stratification ontology is offered as an alternative to it. The latter is based not on the non-existence of mental-cum-intentional objects but, on the contrary, on the applicability to them of those definitive criteria of exis - tence which are documented (however not too often inasmuch as existence is an ultimate notion) in the history of philosophy from Antiquity (with Plato, Aristotle, Berkeley, Pierce, Geach along with some Indian parallels). Thereafter, some modes and “quantities” of these objects’ reality are differed with the involvement of comparative philosophy. (shrink)

This paper considers a formalisation of classical logic using general introduction rules and general elimination rules. It proposes a definition of ‘maximal formula’, ‘segment’ and ‘maximal segment’ suitable to the system, and gives reduction procedures for them. It is then shown that deductions in the system convert into normal form, i.e. deductions that contain neither maximal formulas nor maximal segments, and that deductions in normal form satisfy the subformula property. Tarski’s Rule is treated as a general introduction rule for (...) implication. The general introduction rule for negation has a similar form. Maximal formulas with implication or negation as main operator require reduction procedures of a more intricate kind not present in normalisation for intuitionist logic. (shrink)

Tim Bayne and Susanna Siegel have recently offered interesting arguments in favor of the view that we can experience high-level properties like being a pine tree or being a stethoscope (Bayne 2009, Siegel 2006, 2011). We argue first that Bayne’s simpler argument fails. However, our main aim in this paper is to show that Siegel’s more sophisticated argument for her version of the high-level view can also be resisted if one adopts a view that distinguishes between perceptual experiences and (...) seemings. (shrink)

This paper presents a generalization of the standard notions of left monotonicity (on the nominal argument of a determiner) and right monotonicity (on the VP argument of a determiner). Determiners such as “more than/at least as many as” or “fewer than/at most as many as”, which occur in so-called propositional comparison, are shown to be monotone with respect to two nominal arguments and two VP-arguments. In addition, it is argued that the standard Generalized Quantifier analysis of numerical determiners such as (...) “more than three/at least three” is a simplification which ignores the fundamental parallellism with the propositional comparatives. Furthermore, the symmetric monotonicity configurations of the existential “some” and “no” are shown to be straightforwardly related to those of numerical comparatives with the limit numeral zero, whereas the asymmetric configurations of universal “all” and “not all” involve the extra complicating mechanism of polarity reversal, which is related to Keenan's notion of co-intersectivity (as opposed to intersectivity). A second aim of the paper is to investigate some of the factors reducing the inferential potential of determiners. Different types of comparative determiners and their modification will be considered in detail. In addition, a systematic interaction will be revealed between the monotonicity properties of the determiners in propositional comparatives and the differ ent types of ellipsis in the “than”-complement. Different degrees of ellipsis are defined in terms of informational dependencies between the “than”-complement and the main clause. A general balancing mechanism is observed by virtue of which an increase in informational dependency is compensated by a reduction of the inferential potential of the comparative determiner. The structure of the paper is as follows. Part two deals with propositional comparison and introduces the two basic monotonicity configurations. Part three distinguishes three types of informational dependencies or ellipsis between the “than”-complement and the main clause. In Section 3.1 the “than”-complement only contains a VP constituent, whereas in Section 3.2. it only consists of a nominal constituent. Section 3.3 considers more complex instances of multiple dependencies. Section 3.4 then looks at the interaction of these three types with the modifier “proportionally”. Part four presents the two basic monotonicity configurations for numerical comparison, whereas part five deals with more complex numerical determiners. Bounding determiners, such as “between five and ten”, and other boolean combinations are discussed in Section 5.1, whereas Section 5.2 goes into approximative determiners involving modifiers such as “only” or “almost”. Section 5.3. is devoted to proportional determiners such as “more than two out of three”. Part six then considers the standard existential and universal quantifiers. Section 6.1 reformulates the standard Generalized Quantifier analysis in comparative terms, whereas Section 6.2 deals with exception determiners of the form “all but five”. (shrink)

I now move to the hyperintensionality of normative properties. Since there is already work on the topic, I tackle the main objection to this position, namely reductivism, and I argue that a higher-order supervenience principle, together with a hyperintensional account of properties, deflect Jackson-style arguments against nonreductive normative nonnaturalism.

Since its inception in 1996, Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) has left the status of non-interacting systems notably underexplored. When discussed at all, one prevailing view has maintained that attributing properties to isolated systems within RQM is simply meaningless. However, it has become increasingly evident that without a satisfying account of non-interacting systems, RQM risks sliding toward antirealist interpretations–at least insofar as such systems are concerned. In response to this crucial challenge, two main approaches have been advanced. One is (...) a form of dispositionalism, which suggests that isolated physical systems possess only dispositional properties. The other appeals to a determinable-based account of metaphysical indeterminacy, suggesting that a non-interacting quantum system may bear a determinable property without possessing any unique determinate of that determinable at a given time. In this paper, we offer a new response to the question of what can be meaningfully said about quantum systems prior to measurement in the context of RQM. In particular, drawing on the formalism of Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVMs), we emphasize that (1) preparation–like measurement–constitutes a physical interaction capable of assigning relational properties to a system, and that (2) POVMs are indispensable for the proper description of observables with continuous spectra. On this basis, we propose that RQM can accommodate an entity-realist interpretation of non-interacting systems by attributing to them what we term relational unsharp properties. As we will show, this theoretical move preserves the relational nucleus of RQM while enabling a physically and philosophically coherent account of non-interacting quantum systems. (shrink)