Function essentialism about artifacts

Much recent discussion has focused on the nature of artifacts, particularly whether artifacts have essences. While general consensus is that are at least intention-dependent, an equally common view function essentialism about essentially functional objects and membership in artifact kind determined by a particular, shared function. This paper argues false. First, two component conditions given clear precise formulation, after which counterexamples offered to each. Second, ways handle suggested Randall Dipert Simon Evnine considered rejected. Third, I then consider prospects for restricting so-called technical as Lynne Baker does, argue this, too, fails. thereby consolidates scattered literature shows that, despite seeming plausibility thesis, it should be rejected account