Knowing what it is.

Essentialists understand modal properties in terms of the essences of things. Given this view, it is natural to think that our knowledge of modality ultimately derives from our knowledge of the essences of things. Is that view plausible? Do we genuinely have knowledge of the essences of things, in a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophical Studies Vol. 182; no. 9; pp. 2387 - 2403
Autor principal: Jago, Mark
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Sep2025
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=187667713&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 187667713
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318116
        4L8
      jtl: Philosophical Studies
      issn: 00318116
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2025
      vid: 182
      iid: 9
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        187667713
        10.1007/s11098-023-02005-6
      ppf: 2387
      ppct: 16
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 636KB
      tig:
        atl: Knowing what it is.
      aug:
        au: Jago, Mark
        affil: https://ror.org/01ee9ar58 Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, University Park, NG7 2RD, Nottingham, UK
      su:
        Essentialism (Philosophy)
        Substance (Philosophy)
        Theory of knowledge
        Realism
        Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Essentialism (Philosophy)
          Substance (Philosophy)
          Theory of knowledge
          Realism
          Philosophy
      keyword:
        Conventionalism
        E.J. Lowe
        Essence
        Knowledge
        Modal epistemology
        Modality
      ab: Essentialists understand modal properties in terms of the essences of things. Given this view, it is natural to think that our knowledge of modality ultimately derives from our knowledge of the essences of things. Is that view plausible? Do we genuinely have knowledge of the essences of things, in a form substantial enough to ground our modal knowledge? The more we pack into the notion of essence to allow it to underpin modal properties, the harder it is to claim genuine knowledge. I will argue that realists about essence of a certain kind can have the best of both worlds. They can co-opt a conventionalist explanation of our knowledge of essence, but against the background of a fully realist notion of essence.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Philosophical Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2025. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Philosophical Studies
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2025
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N