A New Look at Shoemaker’s Theory of Properties

Abstract Sydney Shoemaker has advanced a theory of properties that serves as a locus classicus of the view that properties must be individuated by the causal powers that they confer on their instances. His theory is not only important in its own right but also it has deep and far-reaching implications for plenty of philosophical issues, for instance, dispositional essentialism, the dispositional/categorical distinction, the ontological status of laws of nature, to name a few. Curiously enough, however, its validity hasn’t been carefully examined so far. In the early part of this paper, I will defend Shoemaker’s view that properties are not powers but nonetheless clusters of conditional powers from one possible objection. In its later part, however, I will point out a crucial flaw of Shoemaker’s view, presenting a counterexample to the idea that properties are necessarily associated with certain sets of conditional powers. From this I will conclude that Shoemaker’s theory of properties is in trouble.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Kriterion – Journal of Philosophy
Published
2026-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2025-0036
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A New Look at Shoemaker’s Theory of Properties

Kriterion – Journal of Philosophy
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
article

A New Look at Shoemaker’s Theory of Properties

article en

Abstract

Abstract Sydney Shoemaker has advanced a theory of properties that serves as a locus classicus of the view that properties must be individuated by the causal powers that they confer on their instances. His theory is not only important in its own right but also it has deep and far-reaching implications for plenty of philosophical issues, for instance, dispositional essentialism, the dispositional/categorical distinction, the ontological status of laws of nature, to name a few. Curiously enough, however, its validity hasn’t been carefully examined so far. In the early part of this paper, I will defend Shoemaker’s view that properties are not powers but nonetheless clusters of conditional powers from one possible objection. In its later part, however, I will point out a crucial flaw of Shoemaker’s view, presenting a counterexample to the idea that properties are necessarily associated with certain sets of conditional powers. From this I will conclude that Shoemaker’s theory of properties is in trouble.

Kriterion – Journal of Philosophy
Kyung Hee University (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A New Look at Shoemaker’s Theory of Properties · Kriterion – Journal of Philosophy (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS