David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
(New version as of March 18, 2014.) It has recently been suggested that a distinctive metaphysical relation---"Grounding"---is ultimately at issue in contexts where some goings-on are said to hold "in virtue of"", be (constitutively) "metaphysically dependent on", or be "nothing over and above" some others (see Fine 2001, Schaffer 2009, and Rosen 2010). Grounding is supposed to do good work (better than merely modal notions, in particular) in illuminating metaphysical dependence. I argue that Grounding is also unsuited to do this work. To start, Grounding alone cannot do this work, for bare claims of Grounding leave open such basic questions as whether Grounded goings-on exist, whether they are reducible to or rather distinct from Grounding goings-on, whether they are efficacious, and so on; but in the absence of answers to such basic questions, we are not in position to assess the associated claim or theses concerning metaphysical dependence. There is no avoiding appeal to the specific metaphysical relations typically at issue in investigations into dependence---e.g., type or token identity, functional realization, classical mereological parthood, the set membership relation, the proper subset relation, the determinable/determinate relation, and so on---that are typically at issue in contexts where metaphysical dependence is at issue, and which are capable of answering these questions. But, I argue, once the specific relations are on the scene, there is no need for Grounding, either as tracking a coarse-grained but still useful level of investigation, as needed for the specific relations to fix the direction of priority, or as unifying the specific relations.
|Keywords||grounding dependence in virtue of fundamentality Schaffer Rosen Fine supervenience metaphysics ontology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Haines Brown (2013). A Process Ontology. Axiomathes:1-22.
Similar books and articles
Kelly Trogdon (2013). An Introduction to Grounding. In Miguel Hoeltje, Benjamin Schnieder & Alex Steinberg (eds.), Varieties of Dependence: Ontological Dependence, Grounding, Supervenience, Response-Dependence (Basic Philosophical Concepts). Philosophia Verlag. 97-122.
Trogdon Kelly (forthcoming). Grounding: Necessary or Contingent? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
Alex Baia (2012). Presentism and the Grounding of Truth. Philosophical Studies 159 (3):341-356.
Gideon Rosen (2010). Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction. In Bob Hale & Aviv Hoffmann (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford University Press. 109--36.
Jonathan Schaffer (2012). Grounding, Transitivity, and Contrastivity. In Fabrice Correia & Benjamin Schnieder (eds.), Grounding and Explanation. Cambridge University Press.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2013). Metaphysics as the First Philosophy. In Edward Feser (ed.), Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Michael J. Clark & David Liggins (2012). Recent Work on Grounding. Analysis 72 (4):812-823.
Jiri Benovsky (2012). Aesthetic Supervenience Vs. Aesthetic Grounding. Estetika 49 (2):166–178.
Louis deRosset (2013). Grounding Explanations. Philosophers' Imprint 13 (7).
David Yates (2012). Functionalism and the Metaphysics of Causal Exclusion. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (13).
Karen Bennett (2011). By Our Bootstraps. Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1):27-41.
Avram Hiller (2013). Object-Dependence. Essays in Philosophy 14 (1):33-55.
C. Franklin Boyle (2001). Transduction and Degree of Grounding. Psycoloquy 12 (36).
Daniel Howard-Snyder, Joshua Rasmussen & Andrew Cullison (2013). On Whitcomb's Grounding Argument for Atheism. Faith and Philosophy 30 (2):198-204.
Added to index2011-08-22
Total downloads470 ( #212 of 1,088,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)114 ( #183 of 1,088,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?