Found Guilty by Association: In Defence of the Quinean Criterion

Ratio 31 (1):37-56 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Much recent work in metaontology challenges the so-called ‘Quinean tradition’ in metaphysics. Especially prominently, Amie Thomasson argues for a highly permissive ontology over ontologies which eliminate many entities. I am concerned with disputing not her ontological claim, but the methodology behind her rejection of eliminativism – I focus on ordinary objects. Thomasson thinks that by endorsing the Quinean criterion of ontological commitment eliminativism goes wrong; a theory eschewing quantification over a kind may nonetheless be committed to its existence. I argue that, contrary to Thomasson's claims, we should retain the Quinean criterion. Her arguments show that many eliminativist positions are flawed, but their flaws lie elsewhere: the Quinean criterion is innocent. Showing why reveals the importance of pragmatism in ontology. In §1 I compare Thomasson's account and the eliminativist views to which it stands in opposition. In §2 I re-construct Thomasson's reasons for rejecting the Quinean criterion. In §3 I defend the Quinean criterion, showing that the eliminativists’ flaws are not consequences of applying the Quinean criterion, before explaining the criterion's importance when properly understood. I conclude that Thomasson, though right to criticise the methodology of ordinary-object eliminativists, is wrong to identify the Quinean criterion as the source of their mistake.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 77,869

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The neo-Carnapians.Peter van Inwagen - 2020 - Synthese 197 (1):7-32.
Getting off the Inwagen: A Critique of Quinean Metaontology.Karl Egerton - 2016 - Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 4 (6).
Indispensability Without Platonism.Anne Newstead & James Franklin - 2012 - In Alexander Bird, Brian Ellis & Howard Sankey (eds.), Properties, Powers, and Structures: Issues in the Metaphysics of Realism. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 81-97.
The Identity of Particulars Over Time.Peter Lazor - 2010 - Filozofia 65 (6):589-594.
A confirmation criterion of synonymy.Harold Morick - 1980 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 11 (1):13-22.
Compromisso Ontológico.Daniel Durante - 2014 - Compêndio Em Linha de Problemas de Filosofia Analítica.
Against simplicity.M. B. Willard - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (1):165-181.
Ontology: minimalism and truth-conditions.Juan José Lara Peñaranda - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 162 (3):683-696.
Some Quinean Arguments for Quine's Central Doctrines.Daniel Louis Galperin - 1994 - Dissertation, University of California, Riverside
Noneism, Ontology, and Fundamentality.Tatjana Von Solodkoff & Richard Woodward - 2013 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3):558-583.


Added to PP

64 (#192,158)

6 months
1 (#483,081)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Karl Egerton
Nottingham University

References found in this work

Ontological relativity.W. V. Quine - 1968 - Journal of Philosophy 65 (7):185-212.
Realism and Reason.Hilary Putnam - 1983 - Cambridge University Press.
The Intentional Stance by Daniel Dennett. [REVIEW]Sydney Shoemaker - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):212-216.
Realism and Reason.Hilary Putnam - 1977 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 50 (6):483-498.
On What There Is.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1948 - Review of Metaphysics 2 (5):21-38.

View all 29 references / Add more references