Source Title:
Metaphysica
|
Volume/Issue:
Volume 15: Issue 1

De Re Essentialism, Species, and Modal Ambiguity

Ross Inman 1
  • 1 University of Notre Dame, 423 Malloy Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
Ross Inman
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0003
|
Published online:
13 Mar 2014

Abstract

I offer a concise critique of a recurring line of reasoning advanced by and that all modern species concepts render the view that biological organisms essentially belong to their species empirically untenable. The argument, I claim, trades on a crucial modal ambiguity that collapses the de re/de dicto distinction. Contra their claim that the continued adherence of such a view on behalf of contemporary metaphysicians stems from the latter’s ignorance of developments in modern biology, the modal ambiguity reveals the need to retrain in modal metaphysics.

  • LaPorte, J. 1997. “Essential Membership.” Philosophy of Science 64:96–112.

  • LaPorte, J. 2009. Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Okasha, S. 2002. “Darwinian Metaphysics: Species and the Question of Essentialism.” Synthese 131:191–213.

  • Plantinga, A. 1974. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Wiggins, D. 1980. Sameness and Substance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Add to Cart
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Forgot your password?

or
Log in with your institution

Article information

Published Online:
2014-03-13
Published in Print:
2014-04-01

Citation Information: 
Metaphysica, Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 43–46, eISSN 1874-6373, ISSN 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0003.

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston.

Get Permission

Journal + Issues

Metaphysica

Online ISSN:
1874-6373
First published:
30 Apr 2014
Language:
English
Publisher:
De Gruyter

Search