ABSTRACT
I assume here that particulars have properties, properties in the sparse sense, such things as mass, shape, size, velocity, as opposed to ‘mere-Cambridge’ properties, properties that are mere shadows of predicates. Suppose it is true that a particular a has property F. Is this truth contingent or is it necessary? It is common in the empiricist tradition to think that, with the possible exception of certain essential properties, this truth is a contingent one. Certainly, this is the way I have thought about the matter in the past. (Furthermore, I rejected essential properties except for the Lockean notion of properties that are essential relative to some concept in our minds.) Now, however, I wish to argue that for theories such as mine, and for some other theories as well, these truths are necessary.
