David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 166 (2):399-418 (2013)
Given the centrality of arguments from vicious infinite regress to our philosophical reasoning, it is little wonder that they should also appear on the catalogue of arguments offered in defense of theses that pertain to the fundamental structure of reality. In particular, the metaphysical foundationalist will argue that, on pain of vicious infinite regress, there must be something fundamental. But why think that infinite regresses of grounds are vicious? I explore existing proposed accounts of viciousness cast in terms of contradictions, dependence, failed reductive theories and parsimony. I argue that no one of these accounts adequately captures the conditions under which an infinite regress—any infinite regress—is vicious as opposed to benign. In their place, I suggest an account of viciousness in terms of explanatory failure. If this account is correct, infinite grounding regresses are not necessarily vicious; and we must be much more careful employing such arguments to the conclusion that there has to be something fundamental
|Keywords||Vicious infinite regress Metaphysical foundationalism Grounding Metaphysical explanation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Scott F. Aikin (2005). Who is Afraid of Epistemology's Regress Problem? Philosophical Studies 126 (2):191 - 217.
D. M. Armstrong (1989). A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility. Cambridge University Press.
D. M. Armstrong (1993). A World of States of Affairs. Philosophical Perspectives 7 (3):429-440.
Karen Bennett (2011). By Our Bootstraps. Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1):27-41.
F. H. Bradley (1893/1969). Appearance and Reality. Clarendon Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anna-Sofia Maurin, Infinite Regress - Virtue or Vice? Hommage à Wlodek.
S. Weber (2011). Does Schmidt's Process-Orientated Philosophy Contain a Vicious Infinite Regress Argument? Constructivist Foundations 7 (1):34-35.
Claude Gratton (2007). The Viciousness of Infinite Regresses. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 5:25-29.
S. Weber (2013). Non-Dualism, Infinite Regress Arguments and the “Weak Linguistic Principle”. Constructivist Foundations 8 (2):148-157.
Jan Willem Wieland (2013). Infinite Regress Arguments. Acta Analytica 28 (1):95-109.
Yuri Cath (2013). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3):358-388.
Romane Clark (1988). Vicious Infinite Regress Arguments. Philosophical Perspectives 2:369-380.
Jan Willem Wieland (2011). The Sceptic's Tools: Circularity and Infinite Regress. Philosophical Papers 40 (3):359-369.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). And So On. Two Theories of Regress Arguments in Philosophy. Ghent University.
Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (2012). The Regress of Pure Powers Revisited. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (1).
Christina Conroy (2008). No Lacuna and No Vicious Regress: A Reply to le Poidevin. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 23 (4):367-372.
Arnold Cusmariu (1980). Ryle's Paradox and the Concept of Exemplification. Grazer Philosophische Studien 10 (1):65-71.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). Regress Argument Reconstruction. Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Paul Kabay (2005). An Infinite Temporal Regress is Compatible with the Doctrine of Creatio Originans. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (2):123 - 138.
Added to index2012-10-31
Total downloads127 ( #10,065 of 1,692,923 )
Recent downloads (6 months)24 ( #7,908 of 1,692,923 )
How can I increase my downloads?