The Lewisean counterpart theorist– despite not defending a genuinely essentialist view of what is possible, de re, of individuals – generally has a way to make essentialist claims come out as true, in those contexts in which they are endorsed by a committed essentialist. In this paper, I am going to show that the normal system that the Lewisean adopts when she wants to make the essentialist a truth-teller does not work with Kit Fine: his essentialist beliefs, which support his (...) counterexamples to the modal account of essentialism, cannot come out as true, in any contexts whatsoever, under the Lewisean view. After arguing that this represents a genuine problem for Lewis’s theory, I will propose a solution. I will indeed show that the Lewisean has a principled way to account for Fine’s essentialist beliefs, consistently with her own counterpart-theorist reading of them. (shrink)

David Lewis argues at length against haecceitism and goes as far as claiming that, on a certain counterpart-theoretic construal, the doctrine is unintelligible or inconsistent. I argue, contra Lewis, that both qualitative and non-qualitative counterpart theory are in fact committed to haecceitism, but that this commitment is harmless since what is really at stake for a counterpart theorist such as Lewis are more general supervenience claims that are independent of haecceitism. I further argue that Lewis's formulation of the doctrine suffers (...) from two important defects that, once remedied, free counterpart theory of its haecceitistic commitments. Along the way I discuss an objection to the effect that the cheap substitute is inconsistent in the presence of an 'actually' operator. This paper therefore brings together important critical discussion on haecceitism and counterpart theory. (shrink)