Justin Zylstra
University of Vermont
I argue that dependence is neither necessary nor sufficient for relative fundamentality. I then introduce the notion of 'likeness in nature' and provide an account of relative fundamentality in terms of it and the notion of dependence. Finally, I discuss some puzzles that arise in Aristotle's Categories, to which the theory developed is applied
Keywords dependence, fundamentality, Aristotelian metaphysics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.12697/spe.2014.7.2.02
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,797
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Fundamentality.Tuomas E. Tahko - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Logic of Relative Fundamentality.Fabrice Correia - 2018 - Synthese 198 (Suppl 6):1279-1301.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
84 ( #121,826 of 58,756 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #190,322 of 58,756 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes