DOCSLIB.ORG

Truth, Grounding & Dependence Stenwall, Robin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Truth, Grounding & Dependence Stenwall, Robin Truth, Grounding & Dependence Stenwall, Robin 2015 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Stenwall, R. (2015). Truth, Grounding & Dependence. Lund University. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Truth, Grounding & Dependence Robin Stenwall DOCTORAL DISSERTATION By due permission of the Faculty of Humanities, Lund University, Sweden. To be defended at the Department of Philosophy, LUX: B237, 2015-05-28, at 10:00. Faculty opponent Professor Helen Beebee, University of Manchester Lund University Department of Philosophy Document name: DOCTORAL DISSERTATION LUND UNIVERSITY Date of issue Author(s) Robin Stenwall Sponsoring organization Title: Truth, Grounding & Dependence Abstract The subjects of this thesis are (as indicated by the title) truth, grounding and dependence. The thesis consists of an introduction and five free-standing essays. The purpose of the introduction is not merely to summarize the papers, but to provide a general background to the discussions in the essays. The introduction is divided into four chapters, each of which splits into a number of sections and/or subsections. Chapter 1. concerns the notion of ontological dependence. I start by making a distinction between two different types of ontological dependence and discuss how well these notions deal with a number of philosophical issues. I then go on to consider the role that ontological dependence plays in hierarchies of natural kinds. In Chapter 2., I discuss a related notion, namely that of grounding. I sketch the theoretical framework by specifying the logical form of grounding statements and a set of structural principles that govern grounding. The chapter ends with a brief discussion on some philosophical applica- tions of grounding. Chapter 3. deals with the notion of truthmaking and how it squares with the grounding frame- work developed in the previous chapter. I present the reader with the so-called Truthmaker Principle, and provide answers to a number of questions that it raises. The fourth and final chapter summarizes the five papers. The six essays are thematically divided into three categories. Paper I deals with the notion of ontological dependence in hierarchies of natural kinds. Paper II concerns the notion of grounding and resemblance orderings among powers. Papers III, IV and V discuss various aspects of truthmaker theory. Key words: Truthmaking, Grounding, Ontological dependence, Propositions, Necessitarianism, Natural Kinds Classification system and/or index terms (if any) Supplementary bibliographical information Language: English ISSN and key title ISBN: 978-91-87833- 30-4 Recipient’s notes Number of pages 182 Price Security classification I, the undersigned, being the copyright owner of the abstract of the above-mentioned dissertation, hereby grant to all reference sourcespermission to publish and disseminate the abstract of the above-mentioned dissertation. Signature Date 2015-04-15 Truth, Grounding & Dependence Robin Stenwall Copyright Robin Stenwall 2015 Department of Philosophy, Lund University ISBN 978-91-87833-30-4 Printed in Sweden by Media-Tryck, Lund University Lund 2015 Contents List of Papers 7 Acknowledgements 9 Preamble 11 1. Ontological Dependence 13 1.1. Dependent Entities 14 1.1.1. Existential Dependence 14 1.1.2. Essential Dependence 17 1.2. Ontological Dependence between Natural Kinds 19 2. Grounding 23 2.1. The Logical Form of Grounding Statements 27 2.2. The Structural Principles Governing Grounding 30 2.3. Philosophical Applications of Grounding 36 2.3.1. Non-reductive Physicalism 36 2.3.2. Intrinsic Properties 38 2.3.3. Aristotelian Ontology 38 3. Truthmaking 41 3.1. (Q1) What Motivates the Truthmaker Principle? 41 3.1.1. The Truthmaker Principle in Action 43 3.1.2. Grounding Truth without Truthmakers? 46 3.1.3. Rodriguez-Pereyra on Why We Need Truthmakers 48 3.2. (Q2) What is it for a Proposition to be Made True? 51 3.2.1. Some Attempts at Analyzing (TM-G) in Modal Terms 53 3.2.2. Essentialism 59 3.3. (Q3) Does the Truthmaker Principle Cover all Truths? 60 3.3.1. Why Truthmaker Maximalism? 61 3.3.2. Grounding and Entailment 62 3.3.3. Grounds for General Truths 65 3.3.4. Grounds for Negative Truths 67 3.3.5. Grounding Truth in Causal Facts 70 4. Summary of the Papers 79 4.1. Paper I, “Aspect Kinds” 79 4.2. Paper II, “Nomological Resemblance” 80 4.3. Paper III, “Causal Truthmaking” 80 4.4. Paper IV, “Against Truthmaker Necessitarianism” 81 4.5. Paper V, “Truthmaker Internalism and the Mind-Dependence of Propositions” 81 References 83 List of Papers I. “Aspect Kinds” Robin Stenwall Originally published in Persson, J & Ylikoski, P. (ed.) Rethinking Expla- nation. Series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 252 (2007), pp. 193-203. II. “Nomological Resemblance” Robin Stenwall Originally published in Metaphysica 14 (2013), pp. 31-46. III. “Causal Truthmaking” Robin Stenwall Originally published in Metaphysica 11 (2010), pp. 211-22. IV. “Against Truthmaker Necessitarianism” Robin Stenwall Accepted for publication in Logique et Analyse. V. “Truthmaker Internalism and the Mind-Dependence of Propositions” Robin Stenwall Submitted manuscript. Papers I, II and III are reprinted with the permission of Springer Science+Business Media. Paper IV is printed with the kind permission of the editors of Logique et Ana- lyse. 7 Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the help, constructive criticism and patience of my supervisor, Johannes Persson. He is the main source of inspiration behind this work. I am also indebted to my assistant supervisor, Nils-Eric Sahlin for letting me use his lively intellect as a sounding board during our “mini-mini semi- nars”. A special thanks goes to Anna-Sofia Maurin for her helpful (and sometimes devastating) comments, and in particular, for her belief in me. She is, without a shad- ow of a doubt, one of the most independent and coolest persons I know. Throughout my PhD studies I have benefited from the comments offered by my colleagues, both at and outside of the Department of Philosophy in Lund. I am par- ticularly grateful to David Alm, Staffan Angere, David Armstrong, Helen Beebee, Alexander Bird, Brian Ellis, Sebastian Enqvist, Daniel Giberman, Bengt Hansson, Tobias Hansson Wahlberg, Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson, Ingvar Johansson, Martin Jöns- son, Stephen Mumford, Erik Olsson, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Paul Robinson, Stefan Schubert, Matti Sintonen, Andras Szigeti and Lena Wahlberg for their insightfulness. I would also like to thank some of the other staff members at the department that, although (or rather, because) their philosophical contributions were limited, helped me to stay sane. These are Agneta Ahlberg, Henrik Andersson, Anna Cagnan Enhörn- ing, Fredrik Eriksson, Ylva von Gerber, Åsa Harvard, Jana Holsanova, Mats Johans- son, Jonas Josefsson, Petter Kallioinen, Asger Kirkeby-Hinrup, Andreas Lind, Marja- Liisa Parkkinen Sjögren, Carlo Proietti, Eva Sjöstrand, Daniel Svensson, Ann Tobin, Frank Zenker and Anna Östberg. Ingar Brinck deserves special mentioning for her willingness to discuss my theo- ries in depth and for her advice on how to write a good paper. She did this on her spare time, for which I am forever grateful. Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and family with special ku- dos to my parents for monetary support, as well as to Linnea Lindberg, Kajutan, Fyrverkeriministeriet, Bastugänget, Mässingshornet and the Blues Scooter Club for allowing me to blow off steam. My indebtedness to them is colossal. Most of all I am indebted to my beautiful wife Heidi Nilsson and our two fantastic children, Yrsa and Ville, for their support at times when I felt the darkness closing in on me. I could not dedicate this work to anyone else but them. Lund, March 2015 9 Preamble The thesis is a contemporary investigation into matters concerning ontological dependence, grounding and truthmaking. Those who were expecting an opin- ionated sketch of the central notions will have to wait. The preamble is dedi- cated to a brief comment on one of the aims of the thesis, as well as a presup- position. C. B. Martin once wrote that: My aim is to make do with things, properties and relations that make up and are the constituents of situations or states of affairs, all of which would be first-order (1996: 60). Although not easily argued for, I agree with many Australian-minded philosophers that this is the optimal position in ontology. Like Martin and Armstrong I am a fac- tualist in that I believe in the existence of facts or states of affairs where these are un- derstood as things having properties and/or standing in relations. I also agree with Martin that we should strive towards an ontology that is only committed to facts of the first-order. Simply put, we should only commit ourselves to states of affairs that do not have states of affairs as constituents. Armstrong, however, begs to differ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Truthmaker Monism
    Annals of the Japan Association for Philosophy of Science Vol.29 (2020) 61～73 61 Truthmaker Monism Taiji Yukimoto∗ and Tora Koyama∗∗ Abstract Monism is a metaphysical view according to which there is only one funda- mental object. This paper will explore monism within the context of truthmaker theory, or Truthmaker Monism, a view rarely discussed in literature. Although few truthmaker theorists defend monism, at least explicitly, some theories seem to share the spirit of monism to some extent. Interestingly, they are proposed as solutions for the same problem, called the problem of negative truth.Acloseexam- ination will show that while each of these solutions can account for the problem, they are unsatisfactory for different reasons. This paper will suggest a novel solu- tion to the problem of negative truth which preserves the advantages of existing solutions while avoiding the difficulties with which they are faced. Key words: monism, truthmaker, actuality, duplicate, the Humean denial of necessary connections Introduction Monism is a metaphysical view according to which there is only one fundamental object. Recent discussions of monism in analytic metaphysics began with the sem- inal paper by Jonathan Schaffer (2010b).1 Although his view is undoubtedly one of speculative metaphysics, the arguments raised in his paper invoke not only the stan- dard apparatus of metaphysics such as mereology and possible worlds, but also the history of philosophy (Aristotle, Spinoza, and Hegel, among other great figures) and contemporary physics (and particularly the phenomenon of entanglement in quantum ∗ Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1–3, Yamadaoka, Suita, 565– 0871, Japan ∗∗ Research Institute for Time Studies, Yamaguchi University, 1677-1, Yoshida, Yam- aguchi, 753–8511, Japan This paper is based on Yukimoto’s talk at the 8th annual conference of Japan As- sociation for the Contemporary and Applied Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Truthmaking As an Account of How Grounding Facts Hold
    Truthmaking as an Account of How Grounding Facts Hold Jack Yip Abstract Grounding, as a way to articulate ontological dependence, faces the problem of what grounds grounding facts themselves (such as the fact that the singleton of Socrates is grounded in Socrates). This problem stems from the need to account for the holding of grounding facts, which generates the hierarchical structure of on- tological dependence. Within the grounding framework, ground- ing facts are either ungrounded or grounded. I will first argue that neither option can provide us with a satisfactory account. The main reason is that non-fundamental entities have to be counted as fundamental or involved in the essences of fundamental entities in order for either of the two options to work|the non-fundamental is being smuggled into the fundamental. My suggestion is to appeal to the notion of truthmaking and tackle the problem about the holding of grounding facts outside the grounding framework|instead of asking what grounds grounding facts, I ask what makes grounding claims true. Truthmaking is a prima facie relation holding between the representational and the non-representational such that the latter makes the former true. With the principle `if hpi is true, then it is a fact that p,' we can account for the holding of grounding facts in a derivative sense. As a proposition contains the information about its truthmaker, the nature of grounding claims will tell us how grounding facts hold. I accept a realm of concepts which make up propositions (which might be needed already if there are propositions and propositions are compositional).
    [Show full text]
  • “Grounding and Omniscience” (PDF)
    Grounding and Omniscience Abstract I’m going to argue that omniscience is impossible and therefore that there is no God.1 The argument turns on the notion of grounding. After illustrating and clarifying that notion, I’ll start the argument in earnest. The first step will be to lay out five claims, one of which is the claim that there is an omniscient being, and the other four of which are claims about grounding. I’ll prove that these five claims are inconsistent. Then I’ll argue for the truth of each of them except the claim that there is an omniscient being. From these arguments it follows that there are no omniscient beings and thus that there is no God. §1. Stage Setting The best way to get a grip on the notion of grounding – or more exactly, for our purposes, the notion of partial grounding - is by considering examples. (By “partial grounding” I mean “at-least-partial grounding”, just as mereologists mean “at-least-part of” by “part of”.) The first example hearkens back to Plato’s Euthyphro. Suppose that a theorist claims that as a matter of metaphysical necessity, a given act is morally right if and only if it is approved of by God. At first blush at least, it is plausible that this theorist owes us an answer to following question: when acts are right, are they right because God approves of them, or does he approve of them because they are right? We all understand this question right away, right when we first hear it.
    [Show full text]
  • Causal Grounds for Negative Truths
    Philos Stud DOI 10.1007/s11098-016-0841-x Causal grounds for negative truths Robin Stenwall1 Ó The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Among truthmaker theorists it is generally thought that we are not able to use the entailment principle (i.e. the principle according to which truthmaking distributes across entailment) to ground negative truths. But these theorists usually only discuss truthmakers for truth-functional complexes, thereby overlooking the fact that there are non-truth-functional complexes whose truth values are not solely determined by the truth or falsity of their atomic propositions. And once we expand the class of truths that require their own bespoke truthmakers to also include these, there is no reason to exempt negative truths from grounding. For given that truth- making is closed under entailment and every negative truths is entailed by some non-truth-functional complex or other, any resources rich enough to ground the truth of the latter will do the same job for the former. Keywords Truthmaking Á Causation Á Grounding Á Negative truth Á Maximalism 1 Introduction Let us, following Armstrong (2004, pp. 5–7), call the view that every true proposition has a truthmaker, Truthmaker Maximalism. Some truthmaker theorists deny maximalism in view of negative truths. In logical atomism, for example, the truth value of a truth-functional complex is explained in terms of its logical structure and the truth or falsity of its atomic propositions. This has led some philosophers to argue that true truth-functions do not need bespoke truthmakers: all it takes to fix the truth value of a truth-functional complex is to fix the truth value of its simpler constituents.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUNDING TRUTHMAKING a Dissertation Submitted to The
    GROUNDING TRUTHMAKING A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Bradley Rettler Michael Rea, Director Graduate Program in Philosophy Notre Dame, Indiana February © Copyright by Bradley Rettler Some Rights Reserved This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike . Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/./ GROUNDING TRUTHMAKING Abstract by Bradley Rettler This is a dissertation in meta-ontology. In it, I attempt to develop some alternative rules to the standard Quinean meta-ontology. The alternative is intended to allow for a minimal ontology, while still maintaining fit with folk discourse. I hope that this dissertation will help to make such alternative rules precise, and understandable to Quineans, most of whom consider such talk to be “murky metaphysical waters”. The new rules revolve around the relation of ground. In Chapter , I discuss my understanding of grounding. The majority of attempts at articulating a theory of grounding have treated ‘grounds’ as univocal. There has been a recent attempt to argue that ‘grounds’ does not refer. I argue against both of these options, and defend a third: ‘grounds’ is univocal, and grounding is a genus. In Chapter , I turn my attention to one species of grounding—truthmaking. I argue that the measure of ontological commitment is not what a theory says exists, but what a theory requires as truthmakers. A person is ontologically committed to the existence, in the fundamental sense of ‘existence’, of there being truthmakers for the sentences of her theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Negative Truths from Positive Facts
    1 NEGATIVE TRUTHS FROM POSITIVE FACTS Colin Cheyne and Charles Pigden Abstract According to the truthmaker theory that we favour, all contingent truths are made true by existing facts or states of affairs. But if that is so, then it appears that we must accept the existence of the negative facts that are required to make negative truths (such as "There is no hippopotamus in the room.") true. We deny the existence of negative facts, show how negative truths are made true by positive facts, point out where the (reluctant) advocates of negative facts (Russell, Armstrong, et. al.) went wrong, and demonstrate the superiority of our solution to the alternatives. 1. The Problem We are truthmaker freaks. We believe that true claims are true because they are made true. Further, we believe that the truthmakers of true claims are existing states of affairs or facts. There is a long-standing problem for a theory such as ours. It appears to imply that negative facts are required to make negative claims true, and negative facts are very dubious entities. In his posthumous paper ‘Truthmakers for Negative Truths’, George Molnar [2000] presents the problem by setting out four propositions. (M.i)!The world is everything that exists. (M.ii)!Everything that exists is positive. (M.iii)!Some negative claims about the world are true. (M.iv)!Every true claim about the world is made true by something that exists. 2 Though individually plausible, they lead to the apparently false conclusion that negative truths have positive truthmakers. Hence although they are severally plausible they may not be co-tenable.
    [Show full text]
  • Armstrong.Pdf
    EIDE Ê Foundations of Ontology Series Editors Otávio Bueno, Javier Cumpa, John Heil, Peter Simons, Erwin Tegtmeier, Amie L. Thomasson Volume 9 Francesco F. Calemi (Ed.) Metaphysics and Scientic Realism Ê Essays in Honour of David Malet Armstrong Edited by Francesco F. Calemi Copyright-Text ISBN 978-3-11-045461-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-045591-5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliograe; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston Cover image: Cover-Firma Typesetting: le-tex publishing services GmbH, Leipzig Printing and binding: Druckerei XYZ ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com Tuomas E. Tahko Armstrong on Truthmaking and Realism 1 Introduction The title of this paper reects the fact truthmaking is quite frequently considered to be expressive of realism. What this means, exactly, will become clearer in the course of our discussion, but since we are interested in Armstrong’s work on truth- making in particular, it is natural to start from a brief discussion of how truth- making and realism appear to be associated in his work. Armstrong’s interest in truthmaking and the integration of the truthmaker principle to his overall system happened only later in his career, especially in his 1997 book A World of States of Aairs and of course the 2004 Truth and Truthmakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Essential Truths and Their Truth-Grounds
    AN OPEN ACCESS Ergo JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Essential Truths and Their Truth-Grounds ROBERT MICHELS eidos – the centre for metaphysics & University of Neuchâtel This paper motivates and defends a principle which captures a systematic connection between essence, truth, and grounding. It says that if a proposition expresses an essential truth, i.e., if it is true in virtue of the nature of some objects, then there are grounds for its truth which involve these objects. Together with the assumption that a fact can only be grounded in facts which are relevant to it, this principle is then applied in an argument against the monotonicity of the Essentialist notion ‘true in virtue of the nature of’. 1. Essential Truth and Ground There is a current trend in analytic philosophy of abandoning the austere view of metaphysics set out in Quine (1948) and of theorizing not only about which enti- ties exist, but also about their essences and about structural relations of grounding which hold between facts containing them. A broadly Neo-Aristotelian approach to the notions of essence and ground has recently enjoyed much attention both in metaphysics, meta-metaphysics, and other philosophical sub-disciplines.1 An important open question about this approach, which has recently attracted con- siderable interest, is how these two notions relate.2 Inquiries into the relation between essence and ground are not only of intrinsic interest, but also promise new insights about each of the two notions, or so I will argue in this paper. The focus in this paper is on a particular principle, the Linking Principle, which Contact: Robert Michels <[email protected]> 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth and Truthmaking in 17Th-Century Scholasticism
    Truth and Truthmaking in 17th-Century Scholasticism by Brian Embry A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto © Copyright by Brian Embry 2015 Truth and Truthmaking in 17th-Century Scholasticism Brian Embry Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2015 Abstract Some propositions are true and others are false. What explains this difference? Some philosophers have recently defended the view that a proposition is true because there is an entity, its truthmaker, that makes it true. Call this the ‘truthmaker principle’. The truthmaker principle is controversial, occasioning the rise of a large contemporary debate about the nature of truthmaking and truthmakers. What has gone largely unnoticed is that scholastics of the early modern period also had the notion of a truthmaker [verificativum], and this notion is at the center of early modern scholastic disputes about the ontological status of negative entities, the past and future, and uninstantiated essences. My project is to explain how early modern scholastics conceive of truthmaking and to show how they use the notion of a truthmaker to regiment ontological enquiry. I argue that the notion of a truthmaker is born of a certain conception of truth according to which truth is a mereological sum of a true mental sentence and its intentional object. This view entails the truthmaker principle and is responsible for some surprising metaphysical views. For example, it leads many early modern scholastics to posit irreducible negative entities as truthmakers for negative truths, giving rise to an extensive literature on the nature of negative entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Grounding and Metametaphysics
    Grounding and Metametaphysics Alexander Skiles (Massachusetts Institute of Technology/University of Gothenburg) and Kelly Trogdon (Virginia Tech) Commissioned for The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics Editors: Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller Introduction Metametaphysics concerns foundational metaphysics. Questions of foundational metaphysics include: What is the subject matter of metaphysics? What are its aims? What is the methodology of metaphysics? Are metaphysical questions coherent? If so, are they substantive or trivial in nature? Some have claimed that the notion of grounding is useful in addressing such questions. In this chapter, we introduce some core debates about whether—and, if so, how—grounding should play a role in metametaphysics.1 It is undeniable that in fact grounding plays at least some role in how metaphysics is conducted, and has perhaps done so since the beginning.2 Two roles stand out in particular. First, the notion of grounding is routinely used to state, at least in an intuitive way, what is at issue in various metaphysical disputes. Examples include debates over what (if anything) is the ground of mentality and what (if anything) is the ground of modality. Second, the notion is also routinely used to state, at least in an intuitive way, what various other notions of metaphysical interest amount to. Examples include what it is for a property to be intrinsic rather than extrinsic and what it is for an entity to be a substance rather than a mode. 1 For introductions to and surveys of recent literature on grounding, see Clark and Liggins (2012), Correia and Schnieder (2012), Trogdon (2013a), Bliss and Trogdon (2014) and Raven (2015) and (2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Taking the Metaphysics of Knowledge Seriously: a Response to Sven Bernecker’S “On the Metaphysics of Knowledge”
    Taking the Metaphysics of Knowledge Seriously: A Response to Sven Bernecker’s “On the Metaphysics of Knowledge” Joachim Horvath University of Cologne September 6, 2013 Final Version1 In his “On the Metaphysics of Knowledge” (this volume), Sven Bernecker introduces and defends a novel account of knowledge that he calls ‘identificationism’.2 In fact, Bernecker’s account is a hybrid view that combines a modal tracking condition – some variation on safety and/or sensitivity – with his original identificationist condition. The reason for including a tracking condition is that some Gettier cases, like the famous fake barn case,3 are best accommodated in this way. In making this more familiar claim, Bernecker follows epistemologists like Nozick, Sosa, or Pritchard.4 But he also adds the less familiar claim that there are ‘intractable’ Gettier cases that cannot be dealt with by a tracking condition alone. These intractable cases involve necessary or modally stable propositions, such as 2+2=4 or there is carbon on earth,5 which are either true in all possible worlds, or at least true in all possible worlds that are close to the actual world. Now consider the safety conDition on knowledge, which says that a knowledge- constituting belief could not easily have been false.6 This condition is trivially satisfied in the case of necessary or modally stable propositions, and thus it cannot provide for a 1 Forthcoming in Markus Gabriel, Wolfram Hogrebe & Andreas Speer (eds.), Das neue BeDürfnis nach Metaphysik – The New Desire for Metaphysics, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 2 See also Bernecker, Sven (2011) “Keeping Track of the Gettier Problem.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92: 127–152.
    [Show full text]
  • A Clarification and Defense of the Notion of Grounding1
    A Clarification and Defense of the Notion of Grounding1 Paul Audi Forthcoming in Fabrice Correia and Benjamin Schnieder, eds., Grounding and Explanation (Cambridge University Press). 1 Introduction This paper defends a particular version of the idea that there is a non- causal relation of determination, grounding, often expressed by the phrase ‘in virtue of’. This relation corresponds to certain non-causal explanations, including those philosophers give, e.g., in saying that a statue has its aesthetic properties in virtue of its physical properties, or that a thing has its dispositional features in virtue of its categorical features, or that a person has a reason to believe that p in virtue of her perceptual experiences. Indeed, it is the fact that there are such explanations, together with the fact that their correctness cannot be underwritten by any causal relation, that makes it incumbent on us to recognize grounding. The claim that there is a grounding relation has been attacked from various quarters. There are those who consider the very idea of grounding incoherent. And there are those who try to undermine it by arguing that it cannot do the philosophical work its advocates want it to do. I will answer the most serious such objections below. But first, I want to sketch my own conception of grounding, and show how it differs from some of the other conceptions on the table. I believe my conception evades certain objections that the other views must tackle head-on (in part because I deny that certain cases to which some authors appeal are genuine cases of grounding).
    [Show full text]