Philosophical Studies

, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp 111–130

Are shapes intrinsic?

ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

It is widely believed that shapes are intrinsic properties. But this claim is hard to defend. I survey all known theories of shape properties, and argue that each theory is either incompatible with the claim that shapes are intrinsic, or can be shown to be false.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Nominalism and realism: universals and scientific realism, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Belot, G. (2000). Geometry and motion. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 561–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bricker, P. (1993). The fabric of space: Intrinsic vs. extrinsic distance relations. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 43, 271–293.Google Scholar
  4. Earman, J. (1989). World enough and space-time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Field, H. (1989). Can we dispense with space-time? In Realism, mathematics, and modality, Chapter 6. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Leibniz, G. W., & Clarke S. (2000). Correspondence. Ed. Roger Ariew. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. McDaniel, K. (2003). No paradox of multi-location. Analysis, 63, 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Melia, J. (1998). Field’s programme: Some interference. Analysis, 58, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mundy, B. (1987). The metaphysics of quantity. Philosophical Studies, 51, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Parsons, J. (forthcoming). “Theories of location.” In: Dean Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics (Vol. 3). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Royden, H. L. (1959). Remarks on primitive notions for elementary euclidean and non-euclidean plane geometry. In L. Henkin (Eds), The axiomatic method with special reference to geometry and physics (pp. 86–96). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  14. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Sider, T. (2004) Replies to critics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68(3), 674–687.Google Scholar
  16. Sklar, L. (1974). Space, time, and spacetime. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tarski, A. (1959). What is elementary geometry?. In: L. Henkin (Ed), The axiomatic method with special reference to geometry and physics (pp. 16–29). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  18. van Cleve, J. (1987). Right, left, and the fourth dimension. The Philosophical Review, 96, 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations