Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
What is a natural kind ? As we shall see, the concept of a natural kind has a long history. Many of the interesting doctrines can be detected in Aristotle, were revived by Locke and Leibniz, and have again become fashionable in recent years. Equally there has been agreement about certain paradigm examples: the kinds oak, stickleback and gold are natural kinds, and the kinds table, nation and banknote are not. Sadly agreement does not extend much further. It is impossible to discover a single consistent doctrine in the literature, and different discussions focus on different doctrines without writers or readers being aware of the fact. In this paper I shall attempt to find a defensible distinction between natural and non-natural kinds.
1 Cf. Roger Woolhouse's account of ‘essentialism’ and ‘relativism’ in Locke's Philosophy of Science and Knowledge (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), esp. 81, 104, 105.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Grayling, A. C., An Introduction to Philosophical Logic (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1982), 183f.Google Scholar
3 Schwanz, S. P., ‘Natural Kinds and Nominal Kinds’, Mind (1980), 182.Google Scholar
4 Mackie, J. L., Problems from Locke (Oxford University Press, 1976), 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Quotations from Aristotle are from The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Barnes, J. (ed.) (Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
6 Kripke, S., Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), 5.Google Scholar
7 Putnam, H., ‘Philosophy and Our Mental Life’, in his Philosophical Papers, Vol. II (Cambridge University Press, 1975), 295–297.Google Scholar
8 Wiggins, D., Sameness and Substance (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980), 171–172.Google Scholar