D Wholly, Grounding, Truth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
d Wholly, Grounding, Truth by Noël B. Saenz B.A., Biola University, 2006 M.A. Western Michigan University, 2009 A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Colorado Boulder in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2014 d This thesis entitled: Wholly, Grounding, Truth written by Noël B. Saenz has been approved by the Department of Philosophy ______________________________ Graham Oddie, Director ______________________________ Kathrin Koslicki, committee member Date ________________ The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. Abstract Saenz, Blas Noël (Ph.D., Philosophy) Wholly, Grounding, Truth Thesis directed by Professor Graham J. Oddie This thesis is about how grounding, in some sense or other, and whether explicitly or implicitly, bears on truthmaking, groundmaking, and wholemaking. Part I deals with truthmaking and argues that one can be a truthmaker theorist and yet reasonably reject truthmaker maximalism — the claim that all truths have truthmakers. It does this by arguing that there are worlds where it is reasonable to think that negative existentials lack truthmakers but where such worlds do not jeopardize truthmaker the- ory. It also argues in favor of two claims: It argues in favor of thinking that truthmaking should not be analyzed solely in terms of the grounding relation holding between truth- makers and truths and it argues in favor of thinking that grounding is part of the analysis of truthmaking by arguing in favor of an analysis that makes use of grounding. Part II deals with groundmaking. What is it that makes it that some facts or things ground other facts or things? Here I both discuss reasons to think that facts about ground- ing must have a ground and criticize two answers to the above question. One answer has it that the first relatum in facts about grounding grounds that very fact. I show that two arguments in favor of this position, which I call Subtractionism, fail. Another answer has it that facts about the essence of things ground facts about grounding. I argue against this answer. Part III deals with what it is that grounds complex wholes. It shows that, on an intu- itive view of what wholes are grounded in, we have the resources to solve the infamous grounding problem for coincident entities. It is also about facts. The most common ac- count of the nature of facts appeals to their being, in some manner or other, composed iii of individuals and properties. But not everyone likes this view. In particular, there are a number of mereological objections to thinking of facts as composed of individuals and properties. This part argues that facts are no more mereologically problematic than are the chairs you and I are sitting in. iv To my wife, Amy Jean Greenip, A model of what it means to sacrifice one’s life for one’s spouse. Acknowledgments Custom seems to have it that the number of pages devoted to acknowledging those who have helped write a dissertation rarely exceeds two pages, much less five. I say ’to heck with custom!’ I would like to thank the following people for their part in my completing this disser- tation: David Barnett, Rebecca Chan, Marian David, Kyle Driggers, Graeme Forbes, Tyler Hildebrand, Dan Korman, Christian Lee, David Liebesman, Michaela McSweeney, Brad Monton, Bob Pasnau, Tim Pawl, Josh Rasmussen, Mike Rea, Brad Rettler, Ben Rohrs, Raul Saucedo, Jonathan Schaffer, Alex Skiles, Peter Tan, Michael Tooley, Jason Turner, Chad Vance, Kelly Weirich, and Alex Zambrano. Portions of this dissertation were presented at Georgia State University, Gonzaga Uni- versity, Western Washington University, the University of Colorado at Boulder (thrice), the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, the University of Iowa, the University of Leeds, the University of Utah, the 2011 Society for Exact Philosophy, the 2012 and 2013 Pacific APA, and the 2014 North Carolina Philosophical Society. Thanks to those in the audience for their insightful questions and to those who commented on my papers. My dissertation has benefited from my experiences at every one of these talks. Thanks also to the Center for Philosophy of Religion at Notre Dame University, where I spent the 2012-13 academic year on a dissertation fellowship. The community there was generous, active, and kind, allowing me to complete large portions of my dissertation. In particular, thanks are due to Mike Rea, Sam Newlands, Brad Rettler, and Tim Pawl. vi Mike and Sam were (and still are) the co-directors of the center and each did a terrific job in making me feel at home. Mike was particularly helpful, reading a number of my papers and providing me with critical feedback. Brad, Tim, and I initially composed a truthmaker reading group — the best reading group I have yet to be a part of. Not only are these two a blast to hang out with, they have been some of the most careful readers, and critics, of my work. Would that every reading group include members like Brad and Tim. A number of people merit special consideration. Indeed, my being able to complete this dissertation is so indebted to the following people that it will be awfully hard for me to give enough credit where such credit is due. But here I go! I cannot but help and start with one of my undergraduate philosophy professors, Dr. Gregg Ten Elshof. He set the stage for my philosophy career by showing me, not only what makes a good philosopher (though he did this), but, and most importantly, what makes a good person. Though Gregg may not know this (a failure on my part), he showed me, through tongue and deed, what it means to be a Christian first, and a philosopher second. During my two years at Western Michigan University, James Gibson’s friendship and philosophical acumen were a constant source of encouragement and motivation. We spent many nights talking philosophy over beers or coffee (and the occasional cigar or cigarette), reading each others work, and going through Lemmon’s logic textbook until we were sure we correctly completed every proof. James and his wife Jill were more than generous in opening up their home to me and I am certain that life in Michigan (at least during its cold and gloomy winters) would have been well-nigh intolerable had it not been for their friendship. I must mention my family in all this starting with my mother, Dolores Saenz, who has been the chief reason for my pursuing philosophy. Her love of philosophy and ideas was, and still is, infectious. She taught me to seek the truth and to have an open, but critical, vii mind with respect to philosophical positions I may not agree with. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I owe all of my philosophical achievements (such as completing this dissertation) to her. My father, Robert Saenz, taught me the value of diligence and hard work, and I saw the benefits that followed as a result. His is the kind of work ethic I aspire to. My father also loved to work. Whether it was managing manufacturing plants, mowing the lawn, or helping me with school projects (which he did numerous times), my father was eager and ready to tackle the task at hand. Dad, I worked hard on this dissertation and loved doing it. I hope I honor you through it. My first years in college were spent in southern California, close to my eldest sister, Charissa Boyce (then Charissa Saenz), and I have such warm memories of her during what was a very difficult time in my life. She visited me at college, constantly invited me over to her place, and made sure that her little brother was taken care of. One memory that really stands out is her taking me, on my 19th birthday, to the Hollywood Bowl to see Swan Lake. What a blessed time that was. My other older sister, Naomi Saenz, has been there for me more times than I can count. Here is just one of many examples. When I gave my first talk in philosophy at Princeton University, my sister drove two and a half hours from her home to attend my talk, had dinner with me, and drove two and a half hours back that very day. Seeing her there in the audience, and knowing that she was there because she cared for me, made my presenting this first talk of mine much less scarier than it would otherwise have been. Finally, my brother Nicolas Saenz, who has been, up until I got married four and a half years ago, my absolute best friend. Two years after my birth, the Lord gave me a brother, friend, and play-mate. The memories I have playing baseball and basketball, watch- ing cartoons, collecting NBA and MLB trading cards, building legos, playing Nintendo, wrestling, burning leaves with magnifying glasses, and doing so many other things with him, are like precious jewels to me. His friendship has provided a rock-steady founda- viii tion that has been with me all of my life and has been a foundation I have relied on in completing this dissertation. Love from one’s siblings can go a long way in helping someone complete a long and arduous task (such as a doctoral dissertation). In the case of my siblings, it has. For the past five years while getting my Ph.D., two philosophers have had a tremen- dous impact on my personal and philosophical life.