Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRayo, Agustín
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-29T19:20:51Z
dc.date.available2020-01-29T19:20:51Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationTheoria 30(3) : 349-363 (2015)
dc.identifier.issn2171-679X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/39596
dc.description.abstractIn Modality and Explanatory Reasoning, Boris Kment argues that a single notion of essence can be used to play two distinct theoretical roles. He thinks there is an important connec- tion between essence and metaphysical necessity, on the one hand, and between essence and metaphysical explanation, on the other. In this paper I will argue that it is not clear that a single notion of essence should be used to perform both these jobs. For whereas the project of giving metaphysical explanations requires a notion of essence that distinguishes between truths that are more or less “funda- mental” in a metaphysical sense, the project of shedding light on metaphysical necessity does not. 
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherServicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatearen Argitalpen Zerbitzua
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleEssence without fundamentality
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.rights.holder© 2015, Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco Euskal Herriko Unibertsitateko Argitalpen Zerbitzua


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record