Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:53:28.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Full and Partial Grounding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2021

KELLY TROGDON
Affiliation:
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITYtrogdon@vt.edu
D. GENE WITMER
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDAgwitmer@ufl.edu

Abstract

While controversy about the nature of grounding abounds, our focus is on a question for which a particular answer has attracted something like a consensus. The question concerns the relation between partial grounding and full grounding. The apparent consensus is that the former is to be defined in terms of the latter. In this article, we argue that the standard way of doing this faces a significant problem and that we ought to pursue the reverse project of defining full grounding in terms of partial grounding. The guiding idea behind the definition we propose is that full grounding is what happens when partial grounding works in a way that ensures that the grounded is nothing over and above the grounds. We ultimately understand this idea in terms of iterated ‘nothing over and above’ claims.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We presented parts of this article at Lund University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Geneva, and University of Gothenburg. Thanks to our audience members for the helpful feedback. We wish to thank Ricki Bliss, Darragh Byrne, Claudio Calosi, Fabrice Correia, Scott Dixon, Jeff Dunn, Kit Fine, Dan Gibberman, David Kovacs, Jon Litland, Anna-Sofia Maurin, Neil Mehta, Chris Meacham, Kevin Mulligan, Donnchadh O'Connaill, Sven Rosenkranz, Maria Scarpati, Ted Sider, Alex Skiles, Robin Stenwall, Naomi Thompson, and Nathan Wildman. Finally, thanks are due to two anonymous referees at this journal.

References

Armstrong, D. M. (2004) Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, Paul. (2012) ‘Grounding: Toward a Theory of the “In-Virtue-of Relation”’. Journal of Philosophy, 109, 685711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Ross. (2014) ‘Parts Generate the Whole, but They Are not Identical to It’. In Cotnoir, A. J. and Baxter, Donald L. M. (eds.), Composition as Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 90107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David J. (1996) The Conscious Mind: In Search of Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chudnoff, Elijah. (2013) Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael J. (2015) ‘A Puzzle about Partial Grounding’. Thought, 4, 189197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRosset, Louis. (2013a) ‘What Is Weak Ground?’ Essays in Philosophy, 14, 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRosset, Louis. (2013b) ‘No Free Lunch’. In Hoeltje, Miguel, Schnieder, Benjamin, and Steinberg, Alex (eds.), Varieties of Dependence: Ontological Dependence, Grounding, Supervenience, Response-Dependence (Munich: Philosophia Verlag), 243–70.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (1995) ‘Ontological Dependence’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. (2001) ‘The Question of Realism’. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1, 130.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (2012) ‘Guide to Ground’. In Correia, Fabrice and Schnieder, Benjamin (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 3780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goff, Philip. (2017) Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank. (1998) From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. (2009) ‘“Supervenient and Yet Not Deducible”: Is There a Coherent Concept of Emergence?’ In Hieke, Alexander and Leitgeb, Hannes (eds.), Reduction: Between the Mind and the Brain (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag), 5372.Google Scholar
Leuenberger, Stephan. (2020) ‘The Fundamental: Ungrounded or All-Grounding?’ Philosophical Studies, 177, 2647–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, David. (1991) Parts of Classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Litland, Jon Erling. (2015) ‘Grounding, Explanation, and the Limit of Internality’. Philosophical Review, 124, 481532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. (2010) ‘Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction’. In Hale, Bob and Hoffman, Aviv (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. (2015) ‘A Puzzle Postponed’. Thought, 4, 198201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2009) ‘On What Grounds What’. In Chalmers, David J., Manley, David, and Wasserman, Ryan (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 347–83.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2015) ‘What Not to Multiply without Necessity’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93, 644–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2016) ‘Grounding in the Image of Causation’. Philosophical Studies, 173, 49100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skiles, Alexander. (2015) ‘Against Grounding Necessitarianism’. Erkenntnis, 80, 717–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Jonas. (2020) ‘A Minimality Constraint on Grounding’. Erkenntnis 85, 1153–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, David. (1968) ‘On Being in the Same Place at the Same Time’. Philosophical Review, 77, 9095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. (2000) Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Jessica M. (2018) ‘Grounding-Based Formulations of Physicalism’. Topoi, 37, 495512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisdom, John. (1931) ‘Logical Constructions (I)’. Mind, 40, 188216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar