Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Immodest and Proud

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Erkenntnis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In his ‘Ambitious, Yet Modest, Metaphysics’, Hofweber (Metametaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 260–289, 2009a) puts forward arguments against positions in metaphysics that he describes as ‘immodest’; a position he identifies as defended by Jonathan Lowe. In this paper I reply to Hofweber’s arguments, offering a defence of immodest metaphysics of the type practiced by Lowe (The possibility of metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998) inter alia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In fact, there are (at least) two options available. According to Hofweber, there is scope for us to carry out modest metaphysics. To do this, Hofweber claims, we must deploy a distinction between internal and external quantifiers. As he (2009a: 288) notes: ‘Metaphysics will be alright, but it will be different than how most metaphysicians think of it.’ What I’m interested in, here, is whether or not we can continue to think of metaphysics ‘as most metaphysicians think of it’. I don’t engage, then, with Hofweber’s positive re-construction of the project of metaphysics. Rather, I’m interested (in this paper) in defending the traditional approach from his attack. For more on Hofweber’s distinction between internal and external quantifiers, see Sect. 4.

  2. Or, at least, that whatever role there is for metaphysics it is not the same as that described by Lowe.

  3. In effect this is to say that exdurance is right about how world is (entities are counterpart related to one another) but that the endurance theorist or perdurantist is right about what is required for persistence.

  4. Similar remarks apply to the regress argument.

  5. Or, at the very least, that this is the interpretation suggested by the texts.

  6. See, inter alia, Hawley (1999: 479). Of course, it’s not at all clear that Hawley’s very brief remarks on this score entail a regress argument. However, her concerns about how knowledge of metaphysical possibilities can be generated, indicate that a regress argument is one natural way to unpack Hawley’s brief remarks (cf. 3.2 and the ‘knowledge regress’). See, also, Ladyman and Ross (2007: 6–7).

  7. He references Hofweber (2000, 2005).

  8. I’m very grateful to three referees for this journal for their comments on an earlier version of the paper.

References

  • Balcerack-Jackson, B. (2013). Defusing easy arguments for numbers. Linguistics and Philosophy, 36, 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcerack-Jackson, B. (2014). What does displacement explain, and what do congruence effects show? A response to Hofweber (2014). Linguistics and Philosophy, 37, 169–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, R. (2008). How to be a truthmaker maximalist. Nous, 42, 410–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, C., & Liggins, D. (2011). Deferentialism. Philosophical Studies, 156, 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawley, K. (1999). Review. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50, 478–482.

  • Hofweber, T. (2000). Quantification and non-existent objects. In A. Everett and T. Hofweber (eds)., Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of non-existence (pp. 249–273). CSLI Publications.

  • Hofweber, T. (2005). A puzzle about ontology. Nous, 39, 256–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofweber, T. (2009a). Ambitious, yet modest, metaphysics. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 260–289). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofweber, T. (2009b). The meta-problem of change. Nous, 43, 286–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E. J. (1998). The possibility of metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallant, J. (2010). There’s no existent like ‘no existence’ like no existent I know. Philosophical Studies, 148, 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, S. (2013). Tetraquark mesons in large-N quantum chromodynamics. Physical Review Letters, 110, 261601-1–261601-2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Jonathan Tallant

Authors
  1. Jonathan Tallant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Tallant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tallant, J. Immodest and Proud. Erkenn 80, 853–868 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9678-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9678-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation