Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Kripke and Putnam imply that natural kind essences are mi... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The Kripke-Putnam account of natural kind essentialism does not straightforwardly apply to biological species.

    Kripke and Putnam imply that natural kind essences are microstructural, intrinsic properties that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for kind membership.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Personal Identity3 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    If species are individuals, intrinsic properties cannot individuate them.Species membership is determined by relational properties (e.g., interbreeding, ...The Kripke-Putnam account of natural kind essentialism does not straightforwardl...

    Similar

    Natural kinds require distinctive intrinsic natural properties common ...85%The arguments of Kripke and Putnam establish only partial essences, no...83%The essences of natural kinds need be neither intrinsic nor possessed ...83%Species are not natural kinds, or the view that kindhood is fixed by i...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: natural-kinds
    View source passageHide passage
    Kripke (1971, 1972) and Putnam (1975a) use animal kinds as examples of natural kinds for which a posteriori essences can be found. There is some implication that these essences are microstructural, intrinsic properties, which will be, of necessity, individually necessary and jointly sufficient for an entity to be a member of a kind. However, if species are individuals, then it is not true that species may be individuated on the basis of the intrinsic properties of their members. The various spec

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective