Andrew McFarland

Some philosophers have claimed that kinds can be construed as mereologically complex structural properties. This essay examines several strategies aimed at construing a certain class of natural kinds, namely isomeric chemical kinds, in accordance with this view. In particular, the essay examines views which posit structural proper parts in addition to micro-constitutive parts to individuate isomeric chemical kinds. It then goes on to argue that the phenomenon of chirality in stereochemistry gives the proponent of kinds-as-complex-properties evidence for positing the existence of causal-cum-dispositional individuating proper parts, in addition to structural parts, for chemical enantiomeric kinds.

My dissertation addresses a question relevant to metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science: What are natural kinds? I explore a view that holds that natural kinds are complex, structural properties that involve causal structure. Causal structure describes the idea that for the many properties associated with natural kinds, these properties are nomically linked - that is causally connected - in such a way that the properties of non-natural kinds are not. After criticizing arguments in favor of a nominalist theory of kinds - one that holds that a natural kind just is to be identified with its class of instances - and after defending the notion of a complex structural property from several prominent objections posed by David Lewis, I apply a causal account of natural kinds to a set of problematic cases, paying special attention to isomeric kinds from chemistry.

In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein is sometimes claimed to hold a redundancy theory of truth. The main evidence to support this view, however, comes from a single passage, number 136, which has been misinterpreted. In this essay I argue for an alternative interpretation of the critical passage in question. The purpose behind Wittgenstein’s remarks is not to provide a general theory of truth, per se. Rather, Wittgenstein uses the section as a way to introduce his notion of fit, a notion that will play a more substantial role in his later arguments on following rules. Furthermore, if Wittgenstein did hold something close to a redundancy theory of truth, such a view would illuminate remarks from the earlier notebooks about a crucial Tractarian view rather than his later view from the Investigations: the so-called “Picture Theory”.

Most philosophers today will acknowledge the pitfalls of confusing metaphysical and semantic issues. Many are also familiar with the classic semi-formalargument that has come to be known as ‘the Slingshot’ and the various philosophical ends to which this argument has been deployed. The combination of the argument’s relatively simple theoretical machinery and its wide range of applications make it ripe for abuse. The slingshot was originally conceived as a semantic argument about designation; what it suggests, but does not prove, is that the closest analogue to singular term reference for any expression is that expression’s semantic extension. In order to derive more metaphysically robust conclusions, however, many classical deployments of the argument make use of several methodologically suspicious tactics. By cataloguing the more frequent abuses of the argument, we may remind ourselves of a valuable philosophical lesson.

This chapter sketches a taxonomy of artificial dispositions where humans play a part in the triggering mechanisms for those dispositions’ manifestations, and those dispositions that require humans for certain kinds of manifestations to be sustained. Thus the way and extent to which a disposition will count as artificial will be a matter of degree. The chapter argues for adopting an approach from the literature on natural kinds, sometimes called an “epistemic” or “pragmatic” turn, and takes aim at a traditional criterion for something’s being real, i.e. mind-independence, while the proposed alternative criterion is a causal criterion. The chapter goes on to address complications for this taxonomy with potential difficulties from mimics, and a variety of dispositions sometimes purported to exist which I’ll call “apocryphal dispositions”.