Search

A premise of the Leibnizian cosmological argument from contingency says that no contingent fact can explain why there are any contingent facts at all. David Hume and Paul Edwards famously denied this premise, arguing that if every fact has an explanation in terms of further facts ad infinitum, then they all do. This is known as the Hume–Edwards Principle (HEP). In this paper, I examine the cosmological argument from contingency within a framework of metaphysical explanation or ground and defend a ground-theoretic version of HEP which says, roughly, that the plurality of contingent facts is grounded in its members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I argue that life is a strongly emergent phenomenon. For the project of drawing a real distinction between living and non‐living beings cannot but appeal to strongly emergent powers. First, I introduce some features whose possession is typically taken to be sufficient for possessing life, i.e., Life‐Sufficient Features (or LS‐Features). I also clarify what I mean by “strongly emergent powers”. And I fully develop and illustrate my argument. Subsequently, I examine no less than 17 possible reactions to my argument. I show why all of such reactions turn out to be troublesome or inadequate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past decade has seen a burgeoning of scholarly interest in conscientious objection in healthcare. While the literature to date has focused primarily on individual healthcare practitioners who object to participation in morally controversial procedures, in this article we consider a different albeit related issue, namely, whether publicly funded healthcare institutions should be required to provide morally controversial services such as abortions, emergency contraception, voluntary sterilizations, and voluntary euthanasia. Substantive debates about institutional responsibility have remained largely at the level of first-order ethical debate over medical practices which institutions have refused to offer; in this article, we argue that more fundamental questions about the metaphysics of institutions provide a neglected avenue for understanding the basis of institutional conscientious objection. To do so, we articulate a metaphysical model of institutional conscience, and consider three well-known arguments for undermining institutional conscientious objection in light of this model. We show how our metaphysical analysis of institutions creates difficulties for justifying sanctions on institutions that conscientiously object. Thus, we argue, questions about the metaphysics of institutions are deserving of serious attention from both critics and defenders of institutional conscientious objection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the standard view, the function of the unlimited dunamis argument (Physics VIII.10, Metaphysics Λ.7 1073a5–11) is to introduce a new property of the first immovable mover, namely its lack of magnitude. The paper challenges this view and argues that the argument at issue serves to prove that the eternal motion of the first heavenly sphere is caused by an immovable mover rather than by a moved mover. Further, the paper shows that, at least in Phys. VIII, the unlimited dunamis argument is the main argument for the immobility of the Prime Mover. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I argue that Metaphysics H.6 is not an isolated chapter but the conclusion of an argument begun in H.3. This view will provide further and better arguments for the following view about long-standing interpretative debates: first, Aristotle provides a substantive account of the unity of the composite substance (although he also briefly addresses the unity of the form); second, neither Aristotle's conception of matter nor his account of form changes between H.1–5 and H.6; and third, H does not rely on and is not completed by book Θ in any significant way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of William Lane Craig's key arguments for the finitude of the past is the Successive Addition Argument (SAA). Malpass (2021) has recently developed a novel challenge to the SAA, utilising a thought experiment from the work of Fred Dretske, which is meant to show that it is possible to count to infinity, to argue that there is a counterexample to the SAA's second premise. In this paper, I contend that the Malpass‐Dretske counterexample should not worry advocates of the SAA. First, I argue that one objection Malpass considers—the Potential Infinite Objection—reveals an interesting fact: the SAA's second premise is unnecessarily strong and can be weakened whilst still yielding the same conclusion. Second, I show how another one of the objections considered by Malpass—the Accumulation Objection—is successful, provided some clarification to the SAA's premises. The upshot of both analyses is that we generate two 'new' Successive Addition arguments that not only move the dialectic forward, but shed light on deeper assumptions and motivating intuitions concerning the Kalām. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common belief that semantic properties supervene on non-semantic properties: no two possible worlds can be non-semantic duplicates and fail to be semantic duplicates. The view enjoys somewhat of an orthodoxy status in contemporary philosophy of language and metaphysics, and is often assumed without argument. Yet, work by Stephen Kearns and Ofra Magidor has claimed that it is vulnerable to a variant of the classical arguments against the supervenience of the phenomenal on the physical. This paper does three things: it clarifies what semantic supervenience is about, it responds to the objections that have been leveled against it, and provides a new battery of arguments in its favor. I argue that the thesis of semantic supervenience is safe from classical anti-supervenience arguments, and show that its rejection generates unwelcome consequences. I conclude that there are substantial reasons to embrace the received wisdom: semantic properties supervene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Destructions of the Modes of Signifying (henceforth: DMS) is an anonymous fourteenth-century polemic against modist speculative grammar (grammatica speculativa). Wielding Ockhamist logic and metaphysics, the DMS repeatedly attacks the very root of modism: the claim that the grammatical features of language are grounded in the metaphysical properties of the world. I call this the Modist Correspondence Thesis (henceforth: MCT). In its most general form, MCT says that every mode of signifying exhibited by an utterance corresponds to a mode of being exhibited by a thing. The Emptiness Argument of the DMS tries to show that MCT fails to accommodate certain special cases, such as privative, fictitious, and divine utterances, like 'blindness' (caecitas), 'chimera' (chimaera), and 'deity' (deitas). The modist Thomas of Erfurt directly addresses the Emptiness Argument, anticipating the anti-modist criticisms present in the DMS. In doing so, he points the way to alternative formulations of MCT that are immune to those criticisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Avicenna scholars unanimously agree that Avicenna takes the position that God is not classifiable according to the Aristotelian scheme of the ten categories. However, Avicenna scholars are in little agreement about precisely why God evades categorial classification. Scholars report numerous and, at times, mutually inconsistent arguments purportedly made by Avicenna. In this study, I argue that Avicenna has only one argument as to why God is not in the category of substance—the Essence-Being Distinction Argument—and that he makes this argument consistently throughout his major philosophical encyclopediae. Having clarified this argument, two consequences follow. First, we can study this argument to learn not only about God in Avicenna's philosophical theology but also about the nature and structure of the categories in Avicenna's metaphysics. I argue that Avicenna's Essence-Being Distinction Argument reveals a route by which one may arrive at a real distinction between essence and being from a philosophical, rather than a theological premise. Second, Avicenna's Essence-Being Distinction Argument, along with the prevalence and consistency thereof, suggests that God has an essence for Avicenna and that texts, wherein Avicenna denies that God has an essence, are exceptional and should not govern our broader interpretation of Avicenna's philosophical theology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a counterpoint to demonstrative proofs in metaphysics, Robert Nozick presented the case for God's existence based on the value of personal experiences. Personal experiences shape one's life, but this is even more evident with extraordinary experiences, such can be religious ones. In the next step, says the argument, if those experiences can be explained only by invoking the concept of the Supreme Being, then God exists. The second step mirrors scientific explanation constituting what Nozick calls the "argument to the best explanation." The argument is set against the background of Nozick's methodology which rejects demonstrative proofs in metaphysics. Its purpose is threefold. It aims to establish a certain sort of experience (religious/spiritual) as a legitimate basis for the argumentation; it aims to show that it is not philosophically blasphemous to explain such experiences by introducing a concept of divinity. Finally, it seeks to showcase the non-dogmatic, investigative nature of the argument. By exploring the merits of Nozick's proposal, I will try to elucidate all three components, which should pave the way for a broader discussion on the role of non-demonstrative arguments in metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I argue that Proclus' criticism of the causality of Aristotle's intellect is part of a general attack on Aristotle's metaphysics. I show how Proclus criticises Aristotle for rejecting the One as a metaphysical principle and the metaphysical confusion that arises from this. Additionally, I claim that for Proclus Aristotle's understanding of efficient causality differs from Plato's and I discuss two of his arguments that Aristotle should have accepted the intellect as an efficient cause. As I show throughout, Proclus differs in his approach to Aristotle from the harmonising agenda of Ammonius and Simplicius. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metaphysical foundationalists argue that without fundamental facts, we cannot explain why there exist any dependent facts at all. Thus, metaphysical infinitism, the view that chains of ground can descend indefinitely without ever terminating in a level of fundamental facts, allegedly exhibits a kind of explanatory failure. I examine this argument and conclude that foundationalists have failed to show that infinitism exhibits explanatory failure. I argue that explaining the existence of dependent facts in terms of further dependent facts ad infinitum is unproblematic by arguing for the plausibility of a ground-theoretic version of the Hume-Edwards Principle, which states that if each fact in a plurality of facts has a ground, then the plurality itself has a ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In these replies I develop responses to the fascinating issues raised in the commentaries on my book The Metaphysics of Truth from Matti Eklund, Gila Sher, Crispin Wright, and Jeremy Wyatt. I focus on four main areas where there seemed to be a degree of convergence amongst the critics: (1) the viability and use of the sparse/abundant property distinction; (2) truth, dependence, and superassertibility; (3) correspondence, realism, and anti—realism; and (4) my 'globalizing' argument against deflationism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In The Metaphysics of Truth, Doug Edwards offers a sustained case against deflationism about truth and in favour of his preferred pluralist theory of truth. Here, I take up three of the main components of that case. The first is Edwards' account of the distinctive metaphysical commitments of deflationism. His views about this issue have changed over the past few years, and I detail these changes as well as a concern for the views that he develops in the book. Second, I take up the argument that Edwards offers for thinking that deflationism is, in a certain sense, internally unstable. I explain why this argument is inconclusive, outlining three responses to it on behalf of the deflationist. Third, I consider Edwards' novel argument for truth pluralism, which acts as an indirect argument against deflationism. After sorting out some interpretive nuances related to the use of definite descriptions in this argument, I show how the deflationist can resist it. Having responded to Edwards' critique of deflationism, I close by briefly explaining why I take the methodology of deflationism to be especially promising, insofar as it underscores the significance of empirically-informed inquiry about truth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I assess Edwards' two principal arguments against Deflationary conceptions of Truth and argue that neither is fully successful, then revisit the 'Inflationary' argument of chapter 1 of Truth and Objectivity. A case is outlined for a more variegated account of the opposition between realist and anti-realist views of different regions of thought than Edwards' account permits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is structure a fundamental and indispensable part of the world? Is the question of ontology a question about structure? Structure is a central notion in contemporary metaphysics [Sider 2011. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: Clarendon Press]. Realism about structure claims that the question of ontology is about the fundamental and indispensable structure of the world. In this paper, I present a criticism of the metaphysics of realism about structure based on a version of Russell's famous regress argument against nominalism [Russell 1911. "On the Relation of Universals and Particular." In Logic & Knowledge. Reprint, London: George Allen & Unwin]. First, I argue that the three general tests for the fundamentality of structure proposed by realism about structure rely on a particular empirical test for structure, namely, the so-called 'similarity test for structure.' Second, I argue that the similarity test is not well-founded because it leads to a vicious regress. Third, I argue that the regress affects the whole metaphysics of realism about structure, and that no structural notion can be said to be fundamental in connection with any of the other tests. Lastly, I argue that the question of ontology as a question about structure is not substantive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few critics of the received view in metaphysics that ontological disputes are generally substantive have stirred as much response as those that have developed Carnapian arguments turning on considerations of language and interpretation. The arguments from deflationists like Thomasson (2009, 2014) and Neo-Fregeans like Hale and Wright (2009), focus on features of actual language use, others like those from Hirsch (2002, 2009) focus on interpretation. In this paper, I offer a novel challenge to the latter sort of argument. I argue that through their use of the principle of charity, they have unacceptable consequences beyond the ontology room: the best accounts of some natural language phenomena—most importantly, presupposition—cannot be maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary metaphysics has undergone a change of perspective due to the irruption of Grounding in discussions of metaphysical dependence. Proponents argue that Grounding is the primitive relationship of determination underlying many of the traditionally posited idioms of metaphysical dependence. In a recent line of scepticism Jessica Wilson has argued that the inability of the notion to be informatively effective regarding substantial matters of metaphysical determination renders it useless in the face of theoretical work. To supply this lack of informativeness proponents must resort to the already available set of specific 'small-g' relations, which renders the formulation of 'big-G' Grounding pre-theoretically unmotivated. In response two motivations are said to remain: The priority and unity arguments. Wilson insists that neither of these motivations succeeds in establishing 'big-G' Grounding as theoretically useful. I argue that none of Wilson's critiques succeeds in establishing eliminative scepticism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper draws a distinction between the existential quantifier and the symbol '∃' used to express it, on the one hand, and existence and 'exists', on the other. It argues that some popular arguments in metaphysics, including arguments against vague existence and arguments against deflationary metaontology (which views ontological disputes as lacking substance), are guilty of fudging this distinction. The paper draws some lessons for metaphysical debate about existence and highlights some heretofore ignored and attractive positions in logical space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kim's causal exclusion argument purports to demonstrate that the non-reductive physicalist must treat mental properties (and macro-level properties in general) as causally inert. A number of authors have attempted to resist Kim's conclusion by utilizing the conceptual resources of Woodward's interventionist conception of causation. The viability of these responses has been challenged by Gebharter, who argues that the causal exclusion argument is vindicated by the theory of causal Bayesian networks (CBNs). Since the interventionist conception of causation relies crucially on CBNs for its foundations, Gebharter's argument appears to cast significant doubt on interventionism's anti-reductionist credentials. In the present article, we both (1) demonstrate that Gebharter's CBN-theoretic formulation of the exclusion argument relies on some unmotivated and philosophically significant assumptions (especially regarding the relationship between CBNs and the metaphysics of causal relevance), and (2) use Bayesian networks to develop a general theory of causal inference for multi-level systems that can serve as the foundation for an anti-reductionist interventionist account of causation. 1 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The opening chapters of Anselm's Monologion contain a 'proof' of a perfect being, which has received far less attention than the more famous Proslogion proof, and the ontological arguments derived from it. I wish to rectify this by developing an argument in defence of a crucial premise of the Monologion proof. This premise states that 'the Good', i.e. that in virtue of which numerically distinct things may all be good, must itself be a supremely good thing (if it exists). I motivate the argument before considering objections to both premises, as well as putative 'parodies' of my argument. Part of the motivation of my argument will involve the claim that the Good, if it is good at all, must be a paradigm good thing. I conclude that theists have a second kind of ontological argument at their disposal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prominent Thomistic cosmological argument maintains that an infinite regress of causes, which exhibits a certain pattern of ontological dependence among its members, would be vicious and so must terminate in a first member. Interestingly, Jonathan Schaffer offers a similar argument in the contemporary grounding literature for the view called metaphysical foundationalism. I consider the striking similarities between both arguments and conclude that both are unsuccessful for the same reason. I argue this negative result gives us indirect reason to consider metaphysical infinitism as a genuine possibility, the view that chains of ontological dependence or ground can descend indefinitely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem of proving the Necessary Existent has had an important place in the thought system of philosophers in many different schools throughout history. The views put forward on this subject not only reveal the thinkers' conceptions of God but also highlight the distinctive features of their understanding of existence. On the other hand, the views on this subject are directly related to the integrity of the thought system due to the central position of the philosophers in the thought systems. The possibility argument put forward by Avicenna is one of the subjects in which his understanding of knowledge and existence crystallized. The possibility argument put forward by Avicenna is one of the subjects in which his understanding of knowledge and existence crystallized. In addition, considering the general structure of the criticisms directed at him on this subject, it is seen that this evidence has an important effect on clarifying the understanding of the existence of the thinkers who criticize him. It is also possible for us to see how closely metaphysics and logic have a close relationship with each other via the discussions about this proof carried out through the basic concepts of philosophy and the definition theory of classical logic. Moreover, the views put forward by Avicenna on this subject are extremely important in terms of revealing the nature of the relationship between philosophical sciences such as natural sciences, logic, mathematics, and metaphysics. Another feature of Avicenna's possibility argument is that it has an inseparable connection with his views on the classification of sciences. In this respect, it also exposes what one should expect from each science in the journey of becoming a philosopher, which is seen as the highest level of perfection possible for a man in peripatetic philosophy. Because, in classical philosophy, what is expected from the classification of sciences is that every science examines something or an aspect of something that is not studied in other sciences. For this reason, it is thought that the sciences should be learned in a certain order, and it is assumed that the student is dealing with something he has not learned before or a different aspect of what he has learned when the education of each science begins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bird's Ultimate Argument sought to show that Armstrong's N relationships involving categorical universals can't entail nomic regularities. In N's place Bird offered the non-categorical SR relation. Two kinds of objection have been raised: either Bird's own alternative metaphysics fails in just the same way as Armstrong's or the target of Bird's argument may anyway have a way out of the problem. My aim is to reclaim the victory for Bird. I argue that the responses in defence of Armstong's N relationships fail to acknowledge that Bird was explicitly concerned with Armstrong's commitment to a categoricalist view of universals. Moreover, Bird's alternative account does not suffer the same problem since his metaphysics of properties is essentialist. Nevertheless, Bird's account does need elaborating on to explain why SR relationships entail their regularities. I offer Schaffer's Axiomatic Solution as a candidate for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By invoking surprising rationalist considerations that Bernard Williams does not anticipate, this paper defends Williams's claim that that moral criticism on the basis of purported external reasons amounts to 'bluff'. After strengthening this rejection of external reasons by drawing parallels to compelling rationalist arguments in other domains, the paper mounts a similarly rationalist critique of internal reasons invoked by Kantian moral philosophers. The paper closes with an apocalyptic line of thought that develops the preceding rationalist arguments into a challenge to the notion of acting for reasons in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leibniz is often cited as an authority when it comes to the formulation and answer strategy of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Yet much current research assumes that Leibniz advocates an unambiguous question and strategy for the answer. In this respect, one repeatedly finds the argument in the literature that alternative explanatory approaches to this question violate Leibniz's intention, since he derives the question from the principle of sufficient reason and also demands a causal explanation to the question. In particular, the new research on non-causal explanatory strategies to the Leibniz question seems to concern this counter-argument. In this paper, however, I will argue that while Leibniz raises the question by means of the principle of sufficient reason, he even favours a non-causal explanatory strategy to the question. Thus, a more accurate Leibniz interpretation seems not only to legitimise but also to support non-causal explanations to the Leibniz question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radically permissive ontologies like mereological universalism and material plenitude are typically motivated by concerns about arbitrariness or anthropocentrism: it would be objectionably arbitrary, the thought goes, to countenance only those objects that we ordinarily take there to be. Despite the prevalence of this idea, it isn't at all clear what it is for a theory to be "objectionably arbitrary", or what follows from a commitment to avoiding arbitrariness in metaphysics. This paper aims to clarify both questions, and examines whether arguments from arbitrariness really are the proper foundations for one or both varieties of ontological permissivism. I argue that these considerations (even when made more precise) are far less successful at motivating radical forms of permissivism than we often take them to be. To do better, permissivists must either supply a much more developed metaphysics of material objects, or a controversial (but tempting) conception of what we're doing when we do metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, there have been several attempts to use the kind of reasoning found in Fitch's knowability paradox to argue for rather sweeping metaphysical claims: Jago (2020) uses such reasoning to argue that every truth has a truthmaker, and Loss (2021) does so to argue that every fact is grounded. This strategy has been criticized by Trueman (2021) , who points out that the same kind of reasoning could be used to establish entirely opposite conclusions. In response, Jago (2021) has offered a revised argument that is meant to avoid Trueman's objection. I argue that this revised argument is in fact undermined by an objection quite similar to Trueman's. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eternalism is the view that the past, the present and the future exist simpliciter. A typical argument in favor of this view leans on the relativity of simultaneity. The 'equally real with' relation is assumed to be transitive between spacelike separated events connected by hyperplanes of simultaneity. This reasoning is in tension with the conventionality of simultaneity. Conventionality indicates that, even within a specific frame, simultaneity is based on the choice of the synchronization parameter. Hence the argument for eternalism is compromised. This paper lays out alternative eternalist strategies which do not hinge on hyperplanes. While we lack a rigorous proof for eternalism, there are still cogent reasons to prefer eternalism over presentism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional arguments for moral error theory are based on identifying a problem with the metaphysics of moral properties. I provide a new argument that is based on the inconsistency of first‐order moral judgments. I illustrate this using impossibility results in population axiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Metaphysics B 3 Aristotle sets out a famous argument for the thesis that being is not a genus. In his commentary on Metaphysics B, Syrianus criticizes this argument and explains in what sense being is to be regarded as a genus. I reconstruct both Syrianus' criticisms and his own view. I bring out ways in which they can help us rethink key assumptions of Aristotle's ontology and shed light both on Syrianus' critical attitude towards Aristotle and on some of Syrianus' main views in metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers an account of the early career of Martha Kneale, née Hurst, and of the five papers she published between 1934 and 1950. One on metaphysical and logical necessity, from 1938, is particularly interesting. In it she considers the metaphysics of time and offers an explanation of 'the necessity of the past', which has some resemblance to Kripke's ideas about metaphysical necessities, in that it assigns an important role to experience in how we come to know them. But Kneale's view is very different from Kripke's, depending not on doctrines about rigid designation but rather on recognition of the failure of the atomist/empiricist account of 'simple' and 'complex' concepts. That account cannot deal with such things as the relations of the determinates of a determinable like colour. A plausible corollary of this, which Kneale exploits, is that some of our experience reveals to us that there are phenomena which are intrinsically complex in having multiple distinguishable aspects, but where those aspects are inseparable. Other of the papers show Kneale to have been pursuing interesting lines of thought about McTaggart's argument against the reality of time and on the mind-body problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the fresh reading proposed here of the still not satisfactorily interpreted passages in Metaphysics Ε2-3, Aristotle emerges as making a case against determinism based on a robust notion of the accident. Accidental beings are uncaused causes and have their rightful place in Aristotle's ontology. The resulting physical indeterminism is here used as a litmus test for the exegetical practice of the great Commentator, Averroes, whose self-proclaimed, and later proverbial, loyalty to Aristotle's text will be shown to give way to idiosyncratic interpretations at times. His explanations of Metaphysics Ε2-3 are sparse and no less obscure than Aristotle's text. It is only when read together with his commentaries on the Physics, to which he explicitly refers twice in his Long commentary on Metaphysics Ε2-3, that a surprising picture emerges. Averroes recycles the notion of the accident, now reconceptualised in cosmological terms, and – putting it to the opposite use of Aristotle's – weaves it into an original theory of motion that integrates both supra- and sublunar realms into a deterministic framework of uninterrupted causal chains, thus safeguarding the principle of Divine providence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multilocation – the notion of an object being 18756735_00000147_text.pdfat two places – is a central notion in metaphysics. According to a widespread view, multilocation is problematic but metaphysically possible. In effect, it has been claimed that in a quantum world, multilocation is not simply possible but actual. This article provides a new argument against the latter claim: there is no quantum multilocation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In debates about the metaphysics of material objects examples of colocated objects are commonly taken to be examples of coincidence too. But the argument that colocation is best understood as involving coincidence is never spelled out. This paper shows under what conditions colocation entails coincidence and argues that the entailment depends on a principle that actually rules out certain forms of colocation. This undermines the argument from colocation to coincidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Let NNG be the claim that necessitation is necessary for grounding, and let NSG be the claim that necessitation is sufficient for grounding. The consensus view is that grounding cannot be reduced to necessitation, and this is due to the (approximately) universally-accepted claim that NSG is false. Among deniers of NSG: grounding contingentists think NNG is also false, but they are in the minority compared to grounding necessitarians who uphold NNG. For one who would defend the claim that grounding is reducible to necessitation, the task is formidable: she must defend NSG and NNG. I consider two prominent objections against NSG, and two more against NNG before developing a reductive account of grounding as minimal necessitation that avoids not only all four of the previously mentioned objections, but also an additional objection that targets minimal necessitation accounts in particular. If my arguments are compelling, then, insofar as we thereby have a strong prima facie case for thinking that grounding can be reduced to (minimal) necessitation, we have a strong prima facie case for thinking the consensus view is mistaken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to present an interpretation of Émile Benveniste's seminal article ‘Categories of Thought and Language’. In order to do so, a rigorous intratextual analysis is carried out. At the time of its publication, the article was significantly meaningful and attracted severe criticism in the philosophical milieu due to Benveniste’s analysis of the Aristotelian categories. With that in mind, at first (Introduction) we contextualize some aspects of the text’s reception and present some philosophical arguments that illustrate the criticism Benveniste received due to his article. Then, in the first section, we set forth a detailed reading of the article, explaining not only the arguments the linguist presents, but also the way in which they are presented throughout the text. Finally, in the second section, we support the hypothesis that Benveniste assumes the linguistic point of view to propose his reflection, emphasizing the role language plays in the thought-language relationship. Thus, we demonstrate that it is not possible to evaluate the linguist’s reflection within the scope of Aristotelian metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following argument is widely assumed to be invalid: there is a pain in my finger; my finger is in my mouth; therefore, there is a pain in my mouth. The apparent invalidity of this argument has recently been used to motivate the conclusion that pains are not spatial entities. We argue that this is a mistake. We do so by drawing attention to the metaphysics of pains and holes and provide a framework for their location which both vindicates the argument's validity and explains why it appears invalid. To this end, we show that previously proposed explanations for the apparent invalidity of the argument fail. Moreover, we show that our account accommodates and explains seemingly opposing linguistic data. We conclude that the 'pain-in-mouth argument' does not undermine the view that pains are spatial entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to show that the A-theorist's argument from experience is undermined by a commitment to 'experiential punctivism' - the view that instantaneous (or near-instantaneous) experiences are metaphysically prior to durative ones. The experiences to which the A-theorist's argument appeals are those of processual events. For these experiences to constitute perceptions of temporal passage it would be necessary to perceive such processes qua processes; but, if experiential punctivism were true, this would be impossible. We could only ever perceive those processes qua temporal variation, which merely amounts to an awareness of change as described by the B-theory. If there is such a phenomenon as the passing of time, it could not be an object of our experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I offer a new response to the regress argument against pure powers ontologies. This involves rejecting an overlooked premiss, which is that a power's manifestation is exhaustively accounted for by the powers involved in it. Rejection of this premiss not only answers the regress argument, but also brings with it wider metaphysical consequences, including a shift away from one-category ontologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

David Papineau develops a new argument against representationalism, centering on the idea that sensory experiences are essentially representational on this view. He defends his own "qualitative view" according to which sensory experiences are only contingently representational. I discuss his main argument against essentialist representationalism and then provide two challenges for his positive account. First, Papineau's theory faces a dilemma when it comes to explaining the contents of our perceptual beliefs in situations where the conscious character of sensory experience comes apart from what it represents. Second, we may need to abandon the idea that sensory experiences are assessable for veridicality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I am grateful to Laura Gow for her generous and illuminating comments. I will focus on her queries, as this will allow me to elaborate on some points that were treated rather quickly in the book. Gow challenges me on three points. (1) Does my central argument against representationalism about perception commit me to an overly abstract view of properties? (2) What does my view imply about the representational contents of beliefs prompted by sensory experiences? (3) Do I do sufficient justice to the way sensory experience seems representational? I shall consider these in turn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the perspective of Martin Heidegger's philosophy of technology, the Internet qualifies as a paradigm of modern technology, for it possesses all its essential properties to a very high degree: the setting-upon, the challenging revealing, the revealing of what-is as standing-reserve, and a multiple concealment. This article is dedicated to proving the truth of this statement through an analysis of the way in which the Internet satisfies in an exemplary way these properties of the essence of modern technology. Among the possible corollaries of this analysis, we will focus on showing how it constitutes an argument against mythinformation philosophies such as Sloterdijk's, as we show that the Internet is not governed by an alleged non-dominant, dialogical, and cooperative operativity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his Consciousness and Fundamental Reality (2017), Philip Goff defends his anti‐physicalist argument against what he calls the "Dual Carving" objection—the idea that two representations of the very same fact could both be conceptually independent and "transparent," that is, revealing of the essences of the entities in question. His defense invokes a thesis he calls "Minimal Rationalism." I explore exactly how Minimal Rationalism is supposed to turn aside the objection and argue that the formulation of Minimal Rationalism on offer is ambiguous between stronger and weaker readings. Goff needs the stronger reading to use it in defense of his argument, but only the weaker reading is warranted by the considerations he brings to bear in favor of his rationalism. His "Minimal Rationalism" is, in sum, insufficiently minimal. The upshot is not only that Goff is deprived of a way of turning back an important objection to his case against physicalism; we also gain a better sense of what kind of rationalist thesis is properly invoked in metaphysics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article seeks to expose the fundamental lines of the argument formulated by Afrikan Spir ("Denken und Wirklichkeit") to support the elementary claim of his radical reinterpretation of critical philosophy, notably, the claim that reality (das Real) is a foreign element to experience (das Wirkliche). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A persistent tradition in metaphysics of mind insists that there is a substantial difference between mind and body. Avicenna's numerous arguments, for a millennium, have encouraged the view that minds are essentially immaterial substances. In the first part, I redesign and offer five versions of such arguments and then I criticize them. First argument (indivisibility) would be vulnerable in terms of two counterexamples. Second argument (universals) confuses existence with location. Third argument (bodily tools) is less problematic than the first two, though I will say a few words about why it may also not be convincing. Fourth argument (infinity) may not support substance dualism, because, I think, abundance is very different from infinity. Fifth argument (senescence) depends on empirically incorrect premises. Hence, it seems that no Avicennian argument can reasonably save substance dualism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Principle of Sufficient Reason must be justified dialectically: by showing the disastrous consequences of denying it. We formulate a version of the Principle that is restricted to basic natural facts, which entails the obtaining of at least one supernatural fact. Denying this principle results in extreme empirical skepticism. We consider six current theories of empirical knowledge, showing that on each account we cannot know that we have empirical knowledge unless we all have a priori knowledge of the PSR. We consider objections based on Neo-Humeanism and the essentiality of origins, and we consider the possibility that we have empirical knowledge without knowing it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the No Alternate Possibilities (NAP) argument, (1) if time passes then the rate at which it passes could be different but (2) time cannot pass at different rates, and hence (3) time cannot pass. Typically, defenders of the NAP argument have focussed on defending premise (1), and have taken the truth of (2) for granted: they accept the orthodox view of rate necessitarianism. In this paper we argue that the defender of the NAP argument needs to turn her attention to (2). We describe a series of worlds that appear to contain differential passage: worlds where time passes at different rates in different subregions. If the NAP argument is to succeed, rate necessitarians must show that each of these worlds is either metaphysically impossible, or does not contain differential passage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Truth and Objectivity, Crispin Wright argues that because truth is a distinctively normative property, it cannot be as metaphysically insubstantive as deflationists claim. We offer a reconstruction of Wright's Inflationary Argument that highlights the steps required to establish its inflationary conclusion. We argue that if a certain metaphysical and epistemological view of a given subject matter is accepted, a local counterexample to the Inflationary Argument can be constructed. As a case study we focus on the domain of basic taste. We develop two variants of a subjectivist and relativist metaphysics and epistemology that seem palatable in that domain and we show that the Inflationary Argument doesn't go through in the domain of basic taste thus construed. We conclude by briefly discussing the significance of this result for the debate on alethic pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Making Things Up, Bennett defends the intriguing idea that causation should be included among the building (grounding) relations. I critique Bennett's arguments for inclusion, and claim that inclusion distorts her own treatments of causation, relative fundamentality, and absolute fundamentality. Instead, I argue for treating causation and grounding as separate species of generative, explanatory difference-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]