CAJ | 학술논문

经典名称语义理论没有专门讨论自然种类的划分与存在，而自然科学研究不断得出结论质疑语言哲学家对自然种类的解释。在对语义问题的反思中，逐渐形成一个依托性质界定自然种类的研究传统，并形成关于自然种类的两个解释：“类本质主义”和HPC。二者对性质之间的关联有不同把握。HPC避开了揭示本质性质探究的困难，因为纳入较多认识论思考而能够相对充分地解释自然种类的稳定存在。
경전명칭어의이론몰유전문토론자연충류적화분여존재，이자연과학연구불단득출결론질의어언철학가대자연충류적해석。재대어의문제적반사중，축점형성일개의탁성질계정자연충류적연구전통，병형성관우자연충류적량개해석：“류본질주의”화HPC。이자대성질지간적관련유불동파악。HPC피개료게시본질성질탐구적곤난，인위납입교다인식론사고이능구상대충분지해석자연충류적은정존재。
While classical semantic theories of names talk little about the division and existence of natural kinds, scientific researches give increasingly conclusions refuting the traditional semantic interpretations of natural kinds. Based on reflections of semantic issues, there has been a study tradition in which philosophers generally define a natural kind on basis of some properties. Then two new interpretations of natural kinds appeared. They are so called ＂kind-essentialism＂ and HPC. They take the relations among properties differently. HPC differs from ＂kind-essentialism＂. It avoids the difficulty of finding essential properties. Because of taking more epistemic considerations, HPC can serve a better interpretation of the stable existence of natural kinds.