Abstract

In On the Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis introduces a distinction between "internal", "external", and "extrinsic" relations. This distinction is informally known as the "Golden Card". According to the Golden Card, in order to classify a relation we must answer two questions: Does the relation supervene on intrinsic or extrinsic properties? and Are the properties on which the relation supervenes each instantiated by individual relata standing in the relation, or are they instantiated by these relata taken together as a "composite"? ;In my dissertation, I revise Lewis's Golden Card. First, I introduce a new definition of 'extrinsic properties' according to which: Properties are not extrinsic simpliciter. Rather, they are extrinsic with respect to their bearers. The instantiation of an extrinsic property P by its bearer b nontrivially influences the conditions under which at least one of P's component properties may be instantiated by some bearer wholly distinct from b. and Properties such as fearing ghosts and not being thought about by Santa Claus are extrinsic to their bearers. ;Next I reformulate Jaegwon Kim's "Strong Covariance II" to serve as the Golden Card's official version of "relation-on-property supervenience". I use relation-on property supervenience and the idea of nontrivial influence to redefine the 'external' and 'extrinsic' relation categories: 'external relation' is redefined as 'a relation that supervenes on extrinsic properties whose nontrivial influence is bounded by the relata standing in the relation', while 'extrinsic relation' is redefined as 'a relation that supervenes on extrinsic properties whose nontrivial influence is unbounded by the relata standing in the relation'. These redefinitions eliminate the need for misleading talk of supervenience on properties had by relata "composites", while retaining the spirit of Lewis's original characterization of the 'external' and 'extrinsic' relation categories. ;Finally, I use the Revised Golden Card to classify some of the more interesting relations, and compare my classifications to those suggested by Lewis