Re: Mr. Bird and other carnivores

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
>
> > Because Kinds (and properties) exist by virtue of abstract definition,
> > not by virtue of the contingent facts of the local world.
>
> This gets into fuggly issues of essentialism, particularly the attempt
> to distinguish between essential and contingent properties.

Yes. The distinction is difficult, but it necessarily exists, if definitions
do.

> > > They are swans all right. The question is whether it would be wrong
to
> > > deny that Mr. Bluebird is a subkind of Mr. Blanu merely because some
> > > non-blue bluebirds might be discovered eventually.
> >
> > I think it would definitely be wrong. Must a bluebird be blue? No.
>
> How do you know that?

I don't take colour to be a species-defining property. It may be a hallmark,
but not a defining property. You may disagree, and zoologists may correct
me,
in which case I might change my beliefs about bluebirdhood.

> > -- According to my definitions of bluebirdhood.
>
> So Kind is subjective?

Precisely as subjective as every predicate. In using a predicate, I cannot
escape using my own beliefs about what its definition is.

--And.