M. Eddon


 

brief CV

 

No Work for a Theory of Universals, with C. J. G. Meacham, forthcoming in Companion to David Lewis, eds. B. Loewer & J. Schaffer

 

Intrinsic Explanations and Numerical Representations, forthcoming in Companion to Intrinsic Properties, ed. R. Francescotti

 

Quantitative Properties, Philosophy Compass (2013) 8: 633-645

Two grams mass, three coulombs charge, five inches long – these are examples of quantitative properties. Quantitative properties have certain structural features that other sorts of properties lack.  What are the metaphysical underpinnings of quantitative structure?  This paper considers several accounts of quantity, and assesses the merits of each.

 

Fundamental Properties of Fundamental Properties, forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Volume 8

Since the publication of David Lewis's "New Work for a Theory of Universals," the distinction between properties that are fundamental – or perfectly natural – and those that are not has become a staple of mainstream metaphysics.  Plausible candidates for perfect naturalness include the quantitative properties posited by fundamental physics.  This paper argues for two claims: (1) the most satisfying account of quantitative properties employs higher-order relations, and (2) these relations must be perfectly natural, for otherwise the perfectly natural properties cannot play the roles in metaphysical theorizing as envisaged by Lewis.

 

Intrinsicality and Hyperintensionality, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (2011) 82: 314-336

The standard counterexamples to David Lewis's account of intrinsicality involve two sorts of properties: identity properties and necessary properties. Proponents of the account have attempted to deflect these counterexamples in a number of ways. This paper argues that, in this context, none of these moves are legitimate. Furthermore, this paper argues that no account along the lines of Lewis's can succeed, for an adequate account of intrinsicality must be sensitive to hyperintensional distinctions among properties.

Review of Real Essentialism, by D. Oderberg, Mind (2010) 119: 1210-1212

 

Why Four-Dimensionalism Explains Coincidence, Australasian Journal of Philosophy (2010) 88: 721-729

In 'Does Four-Dimensionalism Explain Coincidence?' Mark Moyer argues that there is no reason to prefer the four-dimensionalist or perdurantist explanation of coincidence to the three-dimensionalist or endurantist explanation.  I argue that Moyer's formulations of perdurantism and endurantism lead him to overlook the perdurantist's advantage.  A more satisfactory formulation of these views reveals a puzzle of coincidence that Moyer does not consider, and the perdurantist's treatment of this puzzle is clearly preferable.

 

Three Arguments from Temporary Intrinsics, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (2010) 81: 605-619

The Argument from Temporary Intrinsics is one of the canonical arguments against endurantism.  I show that the two standard ways of presenting the argument have limited force.  I then present a new version of the argument, which provides a more promising articulation of the underlying objection to endurantism.  However, the premises of this argument conflict with the gauge theories of particle physics, and so this version of the argument is no more successful than its predecessors.  I conclude that no version of the Argument from Temporary Intrinsics gives us a compelling reason to favor one theory of persistence over another.

 

Armstrong on Quantities and Resemblance, Philosophical Studies (2007) 136: 385-404

Resemblances obtain not only between objects but between properties.  Resemblances of the latter sortin particular, resemblances between quantitative propertiesprove to be the downfall of David Armstrong's well-known theory of universals.  This paper examines Armstrong's efforts to account for such resemblances, and explores several ways one might extend the theory in order to account for quantity.  I argue that none succeed.

 

Some of the papers posted here include typographical corrections or clarifications made after publication, and so may diverge slightly from their official versions.

 

_________________________

357 Bartlett Hall   University of Massachusetts   130 Hicks Way   Amherst, MA 01003-9269 

phone: (201) 679-9956   email: mayae@philos.umass.edu