Russellian Monism and Ignorance of Non-structural Properties
Justin Mendelow
Australasian Journal of Philosophy August 16, 2023 DOI: 10.1080/00048402.2023.2243622 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Citations | 5 |
| Key points | Argues that Derk Pereboom's characterization of the structural/non-structural distinction generates general metaphysical principles that undermine the Russellian monist claim that non-structural properties, alone or together with structural properties, necessitate phenomenal properties. The author contends these principles are unaffected by our supposed inability to conceive of non-structural properties in a way that would support conceivability arguments. |
Abstract
Russellian monists argue that non-structural properties, or a combination of structural and non-structural properties, necessitate phenomenal properties. Different Russellian monists offer varying accounts of the structural/non-structural distinction, leading to divergent forms of Russellian monism. In this paper, I criticise Derk Pereboom’s characterisation of the structural/non-structural distinction proposed in his Consciousness and the Prospects of Physicalism and further work. I argue that from Pereboom’s characterisation of structural and non-structural properties, one can formulate general metaphysical principles concerning what structural and non-structural properties necessitate. These principles undermine the claim that non-structural properties—either alone or in combination with structural properties—necessitate phenomenal properties. Moreover, these principles are not affected by our supposed inability to conceive of non-structural properties in a manner conducive to the success of conceivability arguments.