Grounding

Metafyysinen perustaminen (tästä eteenpäin lyhyesti ”perustaminen”, englanniksi grounding) on tekninen käsite, josta on 2000-luvun kuluessa nopeasti tullut vaikutusvaltainen etenkin analyyttisessa metafysiikassa, mutta myös laajemmin. Keskeisin syy perustamisen suosiolle on sen käyttö – ainakin teoriassa – erilaisten metafyysisten ongelmien selittämisessä. Näiden ongelmien joukossa huomattavimpia on aivojen ja mielen suhde (ks. luku 10). Vaikka olisimme yhtä mieltä siitä, että fysikalismi on totta eli että ei ole olemassa mitään ei-materiaalista mielen substanssia, niin aivojen ja mielen suhde vaatii silti tarkennusta. Metafyysisessä kirjallisuudessa tätä suhdetta (...) on pyritty selventämään hyödyntämällä joko identiteettiä tai jotakin heikompaa riippuvuussuhdetta. Näin on eroteltavissa reduktiivinen ja ei-reduktiivinen fysikalismi, joista jälkimmäinen esittää, että mieli ei ole palautettavissa fysikaalisiin tiloihin tai selitettävissä niiden kautta. Ei-reduktiivisen fysikalismin vaatima mielen tai tietoisuuden itsenäisyys yhdistettynä ilmeiseen aivojen ja mielen läheiseen suhteeseen on kuitenkin haastavaa esittää johdonmukaisesti. Onkin ehdotettu, että perustamisen avulla voidaan luontevasti muotoilla esimerkiksi näkemys, jonka mukaan psykologiset väitelauseet voivat olla tosia, koska niiden perusta on jossakin todellisessa, mutta tästä ei seuraa, että psykologiset tilat olisivat osa perustavaa todellisuutta (fundamental reality).1 Kuten arvata saattaa, kaikki metafyysikot eivät usko perustamisen hyötyihin, mutta ainakin aihetta koskevan kirjallisuuden määrän huomioiden käsite ansaitsee tarkempaa käsittelyä. (shrink)

It’s often claimed that the laws of nature govern what the world is like, but it’s not clear what governing amounts to. One natural thought is to spell out the notion of governing in terms of grounding. In this paper I propose a way to do so that provides us with a fine-grained picture of governing. This fine-grained picture yields a number of benefits. First, it allows us to distinguish between different kinds of governing. In particular, it provides us with (...) the means to distinguish between constraining and producing kinds of governing. Second, it helps us assess several recent objections to characterizing governing in terms of grounding: it allows us to see that most of these objections only apply to certain kinds of governing, and that even then there are ways to mitigate these worries. Third, it allows us to assess the relative merits of different kinds of governing. And in particular, it allows us to see some reasons to prefer constraining governing over producing governing. (shrink)

This paper examines whether grounding can be naturalized. We adopt a tripartite framework—Ocat (scientific catalogue of existents), Otyp (ontological types), and metaphysics (natures/modal profiles)—and show that classifying as such the relata of putative grounding claims forces a dilemma. When the relata belong to Ocat, ‘ground’ merely paraphrases logical or scientific explanatory relations already available and adds no explanatory value. When they belong to Otyp or to metaphysics, the relation floats free of empirical warrant and cannot be naturalized. Surveying canonical cases (...) (Fine; Schaffer) and general programs (monism; ontic structural realism), we conclude that naturalistic grounds of grounding are unavailable: the notion is either otiose to the scientific discourse, adding nothing to it, or detrimental if competing with it. (shrink)

Fabrice Correia has recently provided reason to think that transcendent entities—entities that are grounded but have no immediate grounds—may exist. I point out that, if they do, grounding fails to have a more general property; it is not accessible, i.e., it is not the case that if x grounds y, there is a chain of finitely many steps of immediate grounding between x and y. I then show that the possibility that grounding is not accessible has two important consequences. First, (...) it provides a reason to prefer one of the two standard ways that grounding has been axiomatized in the literature to the other. Second, there would be cases for which Correia’s and Jonas Werner’s recent definitions of relative fundamentality in terms of grounding do not provide satisfactory measures. I develop an alternative definition that yields more satisfying results in these cases. (shrink)

Some think that the notion of grounding is unhelpful or inappropriate for understanding philosophy or its history. This idea is expressed in this volume’s chapter by Sosseh Assaturian and Rachel O’Keefe. They claim that since the nature of grounding is highly controversial, appealing to the notion is unhelpful for illuminating historical positions. They also claim that the thematization of grounding is a recent phenomenon and infer from this that describing historical views in terms of grounding is anachronistic. This chapter argues (...) for the rejection of both claims. The first would prove too much, for various other notions that have long been centrally important in philosophical discourse are controversial in similar ways. The second is also dubious: various philosophers of the past have carefully theorized notions that historically give rise to the notion of grounding and exhibit the properties nowadays most commonly agreed to belong to grounding. The chapter concludes with a description of the ground-theoretic conception of philosophy advocated by those past thinkers. (shrink)

Call metaphysicians who think that chains of ontological dependence must terminate in a collection of fundamental entities "foundationalists". Call metaphysicians who think that chains of being can proceed ad infinitum "infinitists". Foundationalists claim that foundationalism displays certain theoretical advantages over infinitism. First, some maintain that infinitism has a special explanatory problem that foundationalism doesn’t. Second, others maintain that foundationalism exhibits greater theoretical unity than infinitism. I argue that these considerations give us no reason to prefer foundationalism to infinitism. Against the (...) foundationalist’s first purported advantage, I argue that foundationalists must make theoretical concessions similar to those infinitists must make (§1). And against the foundationalist’s second purported advantage – an advantage infinitists haven’t yet addressed – I argue that infinitism exhibits a different, but nevertheless attractive, kind of theoretical virtue; namely, infinitists explain all existence facts in similar ways (§2). I conclude that foundationalism and infinitism are, at worst, on a theoretical par (§3). (shrink)

According to an influential view in the debate on grounding and essence, there cannot be any cases of ‘upwards essence’, i.e., cases in which a grounding connection flows from the essence of the grounding truth or constituents of it. To use the Finean (2012a) slogan, “it is the fact to be grounded that ‘points’ to its grounds and not the grounds that point to what they may ground”. This paper argues to the contrary. Far from being outright incoherent, potential cases (...) of upwards essence abound. The arguments that have been raised against upwards essence or naturally come to mind turn out to be wanting on closer examination. And we can even derive the existence of certain cases of upwards essence from fairly innocuous general principles. (shrink)

Do causes always precede their effects? Is causation across a temporal gap possible? Is simultaneous causation possible? The comparative neglect of such questions means that we still lack a clear view of the underlying nature of causation. Metaphysicians typically distinguish sharply between grounding and causation, and philosophers of science typically distinguish sharply between causal and non-causal explanation, but there has been surprisingly little discussion of how exactly to draw these distinctions. This chapter argues that six of the most obvious criteria (...) fail to capture the intended distinction between causation and grounding. The chapter proposes and defends an alternative criterion in terms of the principles mediating the dependency, and explores some of the implications of this criterion for the possibility of simultaneous causation in physics. (shrink)

Christian metaphysics advances a surprising thesis about the nature of fundamental reality: the fundamental level of reality is triune (in some sense). Certain Christian traditions maintain that there is a hierarchical structure within the trinity, and recently it has been proposed that such relations should be explicated in terms of the notion of metaphysical ground. This paper is a systematic exploration of the viability of a ground theoretic account of this conception of fundamental reality. We argue for two claims. First, (...) the only adequate ground theoretic accounts must involve laws of ground and must take them to play distinctive explanatory roles. Second, taking the laws of ground to play these distinctive explanatory roles raises a dilemma: either fundamental reality isn't triune in the way demanded by the Christian account or it makes poor predictions about the modal status of certain facts about the laws of ground. (shrink)

This paper examines what role generalised or higher-order identity can and should play in the context of essence and grounding. Emphasising important analogies to ordinary identity, I will speak of quasi-identity. While many philosophers embrace essence and grounding as primitive notions, F. Correia and A. Skiles offer an analysis in terms of identifications linking sentences and open formulas instead of singular terms. Their basic idea is to construe an essential feature as a conjunctive part and a ground as a disjunctive (...) part of the target item. This paper focuses on grounding. First, in the ingredient argument, I assume that the determinative and explanatory character of grounding comes with an inherent and non-trivial necessitating force and argue that quasi-identity is a poor candidate ingredient in an analysis of grounding, because it lacks any sign of such a force. For an alleged de dicto necessitation principle for quasi-identity is dubitable and, in any case, fails to represent an inherent necessitating force. And a de re necessitating force that might be attributed to quasi-identity blatantly fails to be non-trivial. Secondly, in the arrangement argument, I argue that grounding cannot be gained from a subtle arrangement of quasi-identity and truth-functions, because to understand when the arrangement applies and when it does not one already needs a grounding-like notion. Two constructive insights are suggested. First, grounding relations in the general sense are generated by chaining specific grounding operations, of which conjoining and disjoining are only examples. Secondly, quasi-identity is not part of a generation mechanism for grounding but serves as an important transport mechanism for grounding from transparent to opaque cases. (shrink)

Many authors have proposed that grounding is closely related to metaphysical laws. However, we argue that no existing theory of metaphysical laws is sufficiently general. In this paper, we develop a general theory of grounding laws, proposing that they are generative relations between pluralities of propositions and propositions. We develop the account in an essentialist language; this allows us to state precisely the sense in which grounding might be reduced to laws. We then put the theory to use in showing (...) how moral laws can play a role in grounding particular moral facts, in defending monism about ground, and in showing in what sense there is no gap between the grounds and the grounded. Finally, we make a novel proposal about what grounds facts about ground. (shrink)

Van Inwagen argued that the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR) implies necessitarianism, i.e., that all truths are necessary truths. Schnieder and Steinberg showed that van Inwagen’s argument fails if we apply a notion of plural grounding to the discussion of the PSR: the conjunction of all contingent truths is fully grounded in the plurality of all contingent truths. I argue that this manoeuvre fails if we accept a principle I call Redundancy Elimination. This principle follows naturally from the transitivity of (...) grounding and rules out that a plurality of contingent truths can fully ground the plurality of all contingent truths. Nevertheless, it is weaker than a general irreflexivity principle and compatible with basic assumptions held by van Inwagen’s opponents. I conclude that a slightly modified version of van Inwagen’s argument shows that the PSR indeed implies necessitarianism. (shrink)

We explore the view that knowledge of grounding is based on knowledge of essence. We assess different existing accounts of the relation between essence and grounding and identify some of their shortcomings. In response, we propose a novel account that we argue is better suited to explain this relation and show how this can further explain knowledge of grounding. Finally, we examine how one can transition from knowledge of essence to knowledge of grounding. We maintain that, at least in some (...) cases, it is possible to know what grounds what—non-circularly and inferentially—on the basis of knowledge of essence. (shrink)

The fact that it is essential that p in some sense explains that p. This paper makes one negative and one positive contribution. Negatively, the paper argues that the sense of explanation is not ground, and we prove—contra Vogt—that the issue has nothing to do with whether one works with a representational or worldly notion of ground. Positively, the paper proposes an inferentialist account of essence and uses that to develop an account of essentialist explanation.

The papers in The Epistemology of Grounding investigate how we can know what grounds what and discover metaphysical explanations. Questions about reality’s metaphysical structure – and thus what grounds what – are ubiquitous across philosophy. This volume contains new insight into how we can answer such questions and thus into how to better understand reality’s structure. Its expert contributions include new work on conceptualism and the logic of grounding, abduction and inference to the best explanation, grounding in the sciences, knowledge (...) of grounding on the basis of essence and identity, and an account of perceptual knowledge of grounding. Together, these contributions address an urgent need in the literature and will interest a broad philosophical audience interested in grounding and its epistemology, as well as metaphysics and its methodology more generally. (shrink)

Laws play some role in explanations: at the very least, they somehow connect what is explained, or the explanandum, to what explains, or the explanans. Thus, thermodynamical laws connect the match's being struck and its lightning, so that the former causes the latter; and laws about set formation connect Socrates' existence with {Socrates}'s existence, so that the former grounds the latter. But is there more to the explanatory role of laws? A natural proposal, which finds considerable support in the literature, (...) is that laws simply are reasons why. That is, besides connecting the explanandum with a suitable ground or cause, they take part, together with these, in explaining why the explanandum obtains. In this paper, I present two arguments that show that this proposal cannot hold in general. They each point to one unacceptable consequence: a suspicious infinite extendibility of explanantia; and a failure of the irreflexivity of “because.”. (shrink)

This paper offers a modification of Fabrice Correia’s and Alexander Skiles’ (Grounding, Essence, and Identity) definition of grounding in terms of generalized identity that extends it to zero-grounding. The definition promises (1) to improve our understanding of zero-grounding by capturing it within the framework of generalized identity, and (2) to unlock the theoretical potential of zero-grounding for Correia’s and Skiles’ account. The latter is demonstrated by arguing that the definition allows an essentialist theory of modality based on Correia’s and Skiles’ (...) account to answer a recent explanatory challenge by Jessica Leech (From Essence to Necessity via Identity) by combining the following two ideas: (1) Some necessities are grounded in truths about zero-grounding, and (2) at least some identity-propositions are zero-grounded. Finally, some advantages of the zero-grounding approach over Correia’s and Skiles’ recent definition of necessity in terms of generalized identity and logical consequence are argued for. (shrink)

Is there one univocal or generic notion of ground? Monists answer yes, while pluralists answer no. Pluralists argue that monism cannot meet plausible constraints on an adequate theory of ground. My aim in this paper is to articulate a monist theory of ground that can satisfy the pluralist constraints in a way that leaves the pluralists with no reasons not to endorse the monist picture of ground. I do this by adopting a tripartite conception of ground and then showing that (...) it has the resources to vindicate monism while satisfying the pluralist constraints on a theory of ground. (shrink)

This article introduces a non‐cognitivist account of metaphysical explanation according to which the core function of judgements of the form ⌜x because y⌝ is not to state truth‐apt beliefs. Instead, their core function is to express attitudes of commitment to, and recommendation of the acceptance of certain norms governing interventional conduct at contexts.

Aristotle speaks of the fundamental as what is ungrounded or, in his own terminology, separate; and he also speaks of the fundamental as what grounds all else, or as what is absolutely prior. Karen Bennett notes that these two notions of fundamentality are extensionally equivalent, provided grounding is well-founded and transitive. Does Aristotle view separation and priority as extensionally equivalent? That is a difficult question to answer, in part because there are a variety of grounding relations in Aristotle, and in (...) many cases, he does not tell us enough about the relation to know if it has the requisite features of being well-founded and transitive. The chapter considers a case study in order to establish a restricted version of the equivalence claim. (shrink)

We point out an important, overlooked parallel between causation and grounding. Certain cases of causation, such as trumping preemption, reveal causation to be extrinsic: what causes what can depend on what is happening in other parts of the universe. Parallel cases of grounding reveal that the same is true of grounding. This raises a number of important questions — in particular, what determines what causes what and what grounds what? We answer: these are determined by “ennoblers”, a special kind of (...) fact that serves as a second-order explanation. (shrink)

It is overwhelmingly plausible that part of what gives individuals their particular legal or institutional statuses is the fact that there are general laws or other policies in place that specify the conditions under which something is to have those statuses. For instance, particular acts are illegal partly in virtue of the existence and content of applicable law. But problems for this apparently plausible view have recently come to light. The problems afflict both attempts to ground legal statuses in general (...) laws and an analogous view concerning the role of general moral principles in grounding moral statuses. Here I argue that these problems can be solved. The solution in the legal case is to recognize an element of self-reference in the law's specification of what gives things their legal statuses. The relevant kind of self-reference is a familiar part of the legal and procedural world. It is immanent in at least some familiar legal or broadly conventional, procedural practices. The lessons of this discussion of legal statuses can then be applied to the meta-ethical debate over moral statuses, yielding a view on which moral principles also incorporate an element of self-reference. (shrink)

In this paper, I set out a new argument for the coherence of indeterministic building and defend its premises. The argument hinges on the underexplored notion of indeterministic supervenience. First, I argue that the logical possibility of an indeterministic supervenience relation entails the coherence of indeterministic building. Second, I argue that indeterministic supervenience is indeed logically possible. I conclude that there is a straightforward argument for the coherence of indeterministic building that has so far gone unnoticed.

Brian Epstein has advanced a powerful and influential argument for the introduction of a novel relation of metaphysical determination called ‘anchoring’ and, correlatively, against identifying anchoring with metaphysical grounding (Epstein, B. 2015. The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of the Social Sciences. Oxford University Press). The argument aims to establish this by showing that they have different modal properties: anchoring is a ‘universal tool’, in that it allows for an anchored kind to be instantiated at worlds where its anchors are (...) absent, whereas grounding does not, as it is ‘world-bound’. In this paper, I provide a novel diagnosis of where the argument goes wrong. Contrary to extant responses in the literature, I argue that anchoring can be a form of grounding even if we grant all of Epstein’s key (if controversial) insights. Moreover, I show that Epstein’s reasoning has stronger dialectical force against the related but distinct view that social facts are grounded in rules. Even in this respect, however, I argue that there are good reasons to resist this negative conclusion. (shrink)

This article argues that one of the main arguments against metaphysical infinitism—the argument from vicious infinite regress—is unsuccessful. I suggest that a proper interpretation of the argument takes the charge against infinitism to be one of metaphysical insufficiency: without the fundamental facts fully grounding the rest of reality, derivative facts lack the necessary grounding base for their obtaining. I disambiguate the insufficiency claim by examining it from two different perspectives on the regress: the local perspective, which focuses on the obtaining (...) of the individual derivative facts, and the global perspective, which focuses on the obtaining of the entire collection of derivative facts. For each perspective, I argue that the reasons for believing that infinitism cannot provide sufficient grounds are problematic. (shrink)

This paper explores the view that the vocabulary of metaphysical fundamentality is opaque, using Sider’s theory of structure as a motivating case study throughout. Two conceptions of fundamentality are distinguished, only one of which can explain why the vocabulary of fundamentality is opaque.

The aim of this paper is to make some headway in understanding the notion of zero-grounding. The account of grounding in terms of generalized identity, proposed by Correia and Skiles (2019), is employed to clarify issues of ground and zero-ground. I discuss some options for accommodating zero-grounding. According to one option, we slide dangerously close to violating the irreflexivity of ground. According to another option, zero-grounding leads to a worrying kind of overdetermination. A third option offers a way out, but (...) a challenge remains of how best to make sense of it. I further contend that these arguments broaden to concern any notion of grounding according to which groundees are “nothing over and above” their grounds. Ultimately, the aim of this paper is exploratory. It lays out some of the different options and challenges that face the grounding theorist who wants to make sense of zero-grounding. (shrink)

Recent philosophical inquiry into the relations thought to metaphysically structure the world has largely focused on the notion of metaphysical grounding, whereas previously analytic metaphysicians tended to talk in terms of ontological dependence. This raises the question of how metaphysical grounding and ontological dependence relate to one another. In this article, I sketch a picture of grounding as a form of metaphysically substantive sufficient condition and ontological dependence as a form of metaphysically substantive necessary condition, anchored in widely accepted principles (...) for how these relations work. As a case study, I apply this picture to Jack Casey's recent attempt to reduce ontological dependence to a special case of grounding. I argue that Casey's account fails and I show how the picture of grounding and ontological dependence presented here helps us diagnose where the account goes wrong, as well as how it makes sense of the phenomena Casey's account struggles with without having to resort to any ad hoc maneuvers. Thinking of grounding as a form of metaphysically substantive sufficient condition and ontological dependence as a form of metaphysically substantive necessary condition is thus shown to help sharpen our understanding of these phenomena and provide minimal constraints on any purported reductive account of one of the phenomena in terms of the other. (shrink)

Metaphysical grounding is often presented as a relation of directed dependence analogous to causation. The relationship between causation, properties, and laws of nature is hotly debated. I ask: what is the relationship between grounding, properties, and laws of metaphysics? I begin by considering the grounding analogue of Humean quidditism. Finding it implausible, I turn to the primitive-laws account of grounding, recently defended by Jonathan Schaffer and others. I argue this view is also unsatisfactory. I then present several possible dispositionalist-like accounts (...) and characterize the notion of a power to ground. I argue for three important conclusions: (i) each property essentially confers grounding powers; (ii) non-fundamental properties can be defined structurally in a particular sense, elucidating the claim that they are ‘nothing over and above’ the fundamental; and (iii) fundamental properties play a central role in grounding the grounding facts. Finally, it is significant that, combined with a causal powers-account of causal explanation, the door is open to a unified account of the metaphysics of causation and grounding: both flow from the natures of fundamental properties. (shrink)

Some facts ground by generating: they ground by bringing about other facts or grounding connections among them. Intuitively, other facts play a similar role to background conditions in the causal case: they ground by enabling the obtaining of grounded facts or generative connections among them. As we may ask whether causal background conditions are irreducible to causes, we may wonder whether enablers are irreducible to generators. Some metaphysicians defend a genuine metaphysical distinction between generators and enablers. Yet considerations from ideological (...) parsimony and unity should prompt us to defend a unified account of ground. Here, I identify and discuss some characteristics extracted from the literature that are said to be possessed by enablers only. Contrary to this claim, I argue that generators can possess the same features. I conclude that such features should not be regarded as a guide to the irreducibility of enabling to generation. (shrink)

The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) says every fact has an explanation. But van Inwagen argues the PSR is false—otherwise all facts are necessary facts. Consider the conjunction of all contingent facts, which we can call the Big Contingent Conjunction. If every fact has an explanation, then presumably the Big Contingent Conjunction had better have an explanation too. But what fact could explain its truth—is the Big Contingent Conjunction explained by a necessary fact or a contingent one? Trouble ensues either (...) way. If the Big Contingent Conjunction is explained by a necessary fact, then it is hard to see why it should be contingent. (After all, if something follows from what is necessary, it too would seem to be necessary.) On the other hand, if the Big Contingent Conjunction is explained by a contingent fact, then the explanation appears circular since the explanans itself is among the facts it explains in the Big Contingent Conjunction. This paper explores an assumption of this argument rarely subjected to scrutiny—namely, the distribution principle, which asserts that if a fact explains a conjunction, then it explains each of its conjuncts. Though superficially plausible, close consideration of this principle reveals some reasons to reject it, potentially saving the PSR from van Inwagen’s challenge. (shrink)

This paper challenges the conventional view that grounding relations necessitate the truth of grounded propositions, a principle often denoted as (N). The author proposes an alternative principle (P), suggesting that grounding should instead be understood in terms of “metaphysical probability.” By drawing an analogy with causation, which does not guarantee but increases the probability of an effect, the paper argues that grounding relations similarly support metaphysical probability rather than necessity. Using the framework of possible worlds, the author articulates the concept (...) of metaphysical probability and addresses objections to its coherence and grounding. The paper concludes by emphasizing the significance of adopting (P) for a nuanced understanding of grounding. (shrink)

Theorists of grounding believe that this notion has an intimate connection with metaphysical explanation. However, they struggle to harmonize the objective mind-independent features of grounding and the context-sensitive aspects of metaphysical explanation. As a reconciliatory approach, I offer a framework of metaphysical explanation that draws from perspectival realist views in the philosophy of science. According to the proposed view, our understanding of grounding claims is inescapably situated in agent-dependent perspectives that aim to aptly latch onto a grounding structure out there. (...) To defend its merits, I discuss how this grounding perspectivalism offers an insightful analysis of disagreements concerning the priority and asymmetry of what grounds what. Exploring some of the deeper implications of the proposed framework, I conclude by stirring controversy: contrary to a popular view, grounding perspectivalism implies that metaphysical explanation should not be regarded as a guide to grounding. -/- . (shrink)

Explanatory metaphysics aspires to explain the less fundamental in terms of the more fundamental. But we should recognize two importantly different approaches to this task. According to the generation approach, more basic features of reality generate (or give rise to) less basic features. According to the reduction approach, less perspicuous ways of representing reality reduce to (or collapse into) more perspicuous ways of representing reality. The main goals of this paper are to present the core differences between the two approaches (...) (§2), to demonstrate the distinction's significance (§3), to provide some resources for adjudicating between the approaches (§4), and to argue that the project of explanatory metaphysics needs both (§5). (shrink)

The essay analyses the contribution of contemporary analytical metaphysics to socialand legal ontology. In particular, the focus is on two authors: Brian Epstein and JonathanSchaffer. I discuss Epstein’s use of analytical metaphysics notions to explain the structureof social kinds and facts, providing a unique model based on three relations: grounding,anchoring, and framing (GAF).This model offers a new reading of the origin and nature ofsocial entities and brings innovative arguments to the debate in legal ontology. Schaffer’sviews represent a competing thesis, which (...) can be included among the so-called conjunctivisttheories. Epstein and Schaffer’s analyses converge in some respects and both theories appro-ach social and legal ontology with new, fine-grained tools. However, I defend the epistemicand practical value of Epstein’s model. At the same time, I claim that it would bring moreclarity to Epstein’s model if the framing relation was rejected. For this reason, I suggestconsidering a social reality model relying on the grounding-anchoring diagram alone. (shrink)

Jedna od istaknutih teorijskih koristi pojma utemeljivanja jeste njegova sposobnost da ujedinjuje različite slučajeve metafizičke zavisnosti i determinacije. To pretpostavlja da je sam ovaj pojam jedinstven. Jedinstvo utemeljivanja uobičajeno se prećutno pretpostavljalo među teoretičarima utemeljivanja, ali je s vremenom postalo predmet diskusije usled različitih skeptičkih izazova. U ovom radu ispitaćemo tri najopštije teorije jedinstva utemeljivanja: 1) singularizam − gledište po kojem je je dinstvo utemeljivanja zasnovano na ideji da postoji samo jedna relacija utemeljivanja; 2) generalizam − gledište po kojem utemeljivanje (...) treba razumeti kao generički pojam; i 3) gledište koje tvrdi da jedinstvo utemeljivanja počiva na objektivnim sličnostima među različitim relacijama utemeljivanja. Posebna pažnja biće posvećena trećoj opciji koja je bila u velikoj meri zanemareno gledište. Naša razmatranja će ukazati da ovo stanovište, zahvaljujući svojim inherentnim teorijskim vrlinama, zaslužuje mnogo oz biljniji tretman u metafizičkim raspravama o utemeljivanju. (shrink)

In a recent paper in this journal, Jonathan Barker argues against the claim that grounded entities are ontologically innocent. In this paper I defend the ontological innocence of grounded entities against Barker's argument. I tease out an assumption that is crucial for the success of Barker's argument and I show that the defender of ontological innocence can deny this assumption in a motivated way.

Defense of incompletable grounding and discussion of implications for ontological economy.

I argue that complete metaphysical grounds need not amount to metaphysically sufficient conditions for what they ground. I presented this at the Pacific APA in 2011. A version was R&Red somewhere but I never got around to Ring it, so it remains unpublished. It is cited every once in a while, so I'm uploading it here.

Cross-temporal grounding is a type of grounding whereby present facts about the past (for example that Caesar was alive) are explained in terms of past facts (for example that Caesar is alive) rather than in terms of other present facts. This paper lays the foundations for a theory of cross-temporal grounding. After introducing the general idea of a type of grounding connecting facts to past facts, we offer two arguments that past-directed facts require cross-temporal grounds—the ‘argument from intimacy’ and the (...) ‘argument from past explanation’. We then go on to show that cross-temporal grounding statements can be understood as instances of a type of explanation which is perfectly legitimate and intelligible, even if somewhat unusual. Finally, we explain how the logic of grounding can be extended to accommodate cross-temporal grounding statements. (shrink)

In this paper, we explore locative grounding harmony, according to which the location of the grounds mirrors the location of the grounded. We proceed in three stages. First, we clarify the notion of locative harmony and describe different locative harmony principles. Second, we offer two arguments for the claim that grounding between physically located entities obeys principles of locative harmony. Third, we consider and respond to a range of cases that seem to show that grounding relations between physically located entities (...) do not obey such principles. We conclude that grounding between such entities obeys locative harmony. (shrink)

Grounding is bicollective if it is possible for some truths δ,δ,... to be grounded in the some truths γ,γ,... without its being the case that each δi is grounded in some subcollection of γ,γ,.... In this paper I show how to do develop a hypergraph-theoretic account of bicollective ground, taking the notion of immediate ground as basic. I also indicate how bicollective ground helps with formulating mathematical structuralism.

Many authors have proposed that grounding is closely related to metaphysical laws. However, we argue that no existing theory of metaphysical laws is sufficiently general. In this paper we develop a general theory of grounding laws, proposing that they are generative relations between pluralities of propositions and propositions. We develop the account in an essentialist language; this allows us to state precisely the sense in which grounding might be reduced to laws. We then put the theory to use in showing (...) how moral laws can play a role in grounding particular moral facts, in defending monism about ground, and in showing in what sense there is no gap between the grounds and the grounded. Finally, we make a novel proposal about what grounds facts about ground. (shrink)

(Note: this is the lead article in a forthcoming issue of Australasian Philosophical Review edited by Dana Goswick, with invited comments by Karen Bennett, Ricki Bliss, Jonathan Schaffer, Alexander Skiles. There is a call for commentators, with abstracts due October 31, 2025) A wide range of scientific, religious/cosmological, and philosophical views presuppose that there is what I call `metaphysical structure', whereby (i) some goings-on in a given domain D are (absolutely or comparatively) fundamental; and (ii) (comparatively) non-fundamental goings-on in (...) D metaphysically depend on (absolutely or comparatively) fundamental goings-on in D. Such presuppositions motivate two broadly metametaphysical questions: (i) what makes it the case that some goings-on in a domain D are (absolutely or comparatively) fundamental? and (ii) what makes it the case that (comparatively) non-fundamental goings-on in a domain D metaphysically depend on (absolutely or comparatively) fundamental goings-on in D? Here I advance my preferred 'Fundamentality First' package deal approach to metaphysical structure, which couples a primitivist approach to fundamentality with a pluralist approach to metaphysical dependence. (shrink)

According to metaphysical coherentism, grounding relations form an interconnected system in which things ground each other and nothing is ungrounded. This potentially viable view’s logical territory remains largely unexplored. In this paper, I describe that territory by articulating four varieties of metaphysical coherentism. I do not argue for any variety in particular. Rather, I aim to show that not all issues which might be raised against coherentism will be equally problematic for all the versions of that view, which features far (...) more nuance and diversity than is typically ascribed to it. (shrink)

_Grounding_ is meant to be a metaphysically explanatory relation of non-causal constitutive determination. Recently there has been significant interest in the idea that there might be ‘laws of metaphysics’ for grounding, analogous to the laws of nature for causation. In this paper I argue that current accounts of the structure of law-based grounding (focusing on Jonathan Schaffer’s structural equation modeling account) do not capture grounding’s directionality—a central feature. The formal account must be supplemented to satisfy this demand and give a (...) successful general account of directed grounding relations. I thus propose two alternative supplements: Priority-Inextricable Grounding and Priority-Extricable Grounding (itself divided into two alternatives—Priority by Absolute Fundamentality and Priority by Relative Fundamentality). Each supplement offers a distinct image of grounding—most illustratively, modally: for each, the structure of grounding contrastingly constrains the metaphysical compossibility of worlds that share facts or grounding relations. As such, I conclude that the supplements offer incompatible strategies for sourcing grounding directionality and grounding theorists ought to decide between them. (shrink)

This chapter is a guide to the basics of metaphysical grounding. It offers an accessible overview of its features and uses, comparing this concept with other forms of dependency one can find in the literature. It emphasizes two major theoretical roles grounding is claimed to play in philosophical theorizing: (i) accounting for a distinctive form of non-causal determination and (ii) illuminating the hierarchical structure of reality. The chapter aims to persuade the reader of the usefulness of grounding by discussing how (...) some objections targeting these roles can be mitigated. -/- Este capítulo es una guía para conocer los elementos básicos de la fundamentación metafísica. Ofrece una revisión accesible de sus características y usos, comparando este concepto con otras formas de dependencia que se pueden encontrar en la literatura. Enfatiza dos roles teóricos centrales que la fundamentación supuestamente juega en la teorización filosófica: (i) dar cuenta de una forma distintiva de determinación no causal y (ii) entender mejor la estructura jerárquica de la realidad. El capítulo apunta a persuadir a las lectoras de lautilidad de la fundamentación discutiendo cómo pueden mitigarse algunas objeciones dirigidas a esos roles. (shrink)

This paper discusses a novel response to two closely related regress arguments from Bolzano’s Theory of Science and Carroll’s What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. Bolzano’s argument aims to refute the thesis that full grounds must include propositions involving notions such as entailment, grounding or lawhood which link the respective grounds to their groundee. This thesis is motivated, Bolzano’s argument is reconstructed, and a response based on self-referential linking propositions is developed and defended against objections concerning self-reference and Curry’s paradox. (...) Finally, the idea is applied to a reading of Carroll’s dialogue and a corresponding solution to the so-called infinite regress problem of inference is proposed. (shrink)

This chapter discusses why the grounding idiom does not perform as well as we have been led to believe in providing a plausible approach to relative fundamentality. Grounding suffers from some of same deficiencies as supervenience: most prominently, grounding also fails to be sufficiently fine-grained to do its intended explanatory work. In addition, there is doubt as to whether the phenomena collected together under the rubric of grounding are really unified by the presence of a single relation. Grounding turns out (...) not to be helpful in capturing and illuminating what is philosophically important about the traditional substance/non-substance distinction. Although grounding performs better than supervenience in some ways, it does not solve all of the problems to which a supervenience-based approach to relative fundamentality falls prey. (shrink)