Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are shapes intrinsic?

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Nominalism and realism: universals and scientific realism, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belot, G. (2000). Geometry and motion. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 561–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, P. (1993). The fabric of space: Intrinsic vs. extrinsic distance relations. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 43, 271–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J. (1989). World enough and space-time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, H. (1989). Can we dispense with space-time? In Realism, mathematics, and modality, Chapter 6. New York: Basil Blackwell.

  • Leibniz, G. W., & Clarke S. (2000). Correspondence. Ed. Roger Ariew. Indianapolis: Hackett.

  • Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, K. (2003). No paradox of multi-location. Analysis, 63, 309–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melia, J. (1998). Field’s programme: Some interference. Analysis, 58, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundy, B. (1987). The metaphysics of quantity. Philosophical Studies, 51, 29–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, J. (forthcoming). “Theories of location.” In: Dean Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics (Vol. 3). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • 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 

  • Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. (2004) Replies to critics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68(3), 674–687.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklar, L. (1974). Space, time, and spacetime. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • van Cleve, J. (1987). Right, left, and the fourth dimension. The Philosophical Review, 96, 33–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA

    Bradford Skow

Authors
  1. Bradford Skow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bradford Skow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Skow, B. Are shapes intrinsic?. Philos Stud 133, 111–130 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9009-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9009-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation