Viciousness and the structure of reality
Philosophical Studies (forthcoming)
| Abstract | 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 Grounding Metaphysical Foundationalism Metaphysical Explanation | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAnna-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 (forthcoming). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
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 21 (1).
Christina Conroy (2008). No Lacuna and No Vicious Regress: A Reply to le Poidevin. 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.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-10-31Total downloads46 ( #24,347 of 556,896 )Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #3,896 of 556,896 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
