Abstract

“Supervenience” has been defined in various ways, and different things have been said about the relations between different supervenience concepts. This paper aims to clarify some of the dimensions on which different intuitive supervenience ideas differ, and the role they play in formulating philosophical problems and theses. It begins with an analysis of two different intuitive ideas that motivate attempts to articulate supervenience concepts. The relations between different supervenience definitions are discussed, and questions are raised about the role of concepts of supervenience in the dialectic of metaphysical argument and analysis.