Grounding Generalizations

Goodman, Jeremy

doi:10.1007/s10992-022-09689-x

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Grounding might help, but so far most of what we have are inconsistency resultsFritz (2022),,Wilhelm (2021), though cf. Litland (2022 andGoodman (2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher-Order Metaphysics and Propositional Attitudes

Lederman

2024

Higher-Order Metaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to relationism, for Alice to believe that some rabbits can speak is for Alice to stand in a relation to a further entity, some rabbits can speak. But what could this further entity possibly be? Higher-order metaphysics seems to offer a simple, natural answer. On this view (roughly put), expressions in different syntactic categories (for instance: names, predicates, sentences) in general denote entities in correspondingly different ontological categories. Alice's belief can thus be understood to relate her to a sui generis entity denoted by “some rabbits can speak”, belonging to a different ontological category than Alice herself. This straightforward account of the attitudes has historically been deemed so attractive that it was seen as an important motivation for higher-order metaphysics itself (Prior 1971). But I argue that it is not as straightforward as it might seem, and in fact that propositional attitudes present a foundational challenge for higher-order metaphysics.

show abstract

“…Grounding might help, but so far most of what we have are inconsistency resultsFritz (2022),,Wilhelm (2021), though cf. Litland (2022 andGoodman (2023).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Higher-Order Metaphysics and Propositional Attitudes

Lederman

2024

Higher-Order Metaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Indiscernibility and the grounds of identity

Elgin

2024

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I provide a theory of the metaphysical foundations of identity: an account of what grounds facts of the form $$a=b$$ a = b . In particular, I defend the claim that indiscernibility grounds identity. This is typically rejected because it is viciously circular; plausible assumptions about the logic of ground entail that the fact that $$a=b$$ a = b partially grounds itself. The theory I defend is immune to this circularity.

show abstract

Structured propositions and a semantics for unrestricted impure logics of ground

Kiani

2023

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grounding Generalizations

Cited by 3 publications

References 39 publications

Higher-Order Metaphysics and Propositional Attitudes

Higher-Order Metaphysics and Propositional Attitudes

Indiscernibility and the grounds of identity

Structured propositions and a semantics for unrestricted impure logics of ground

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About