30
October
Written by Tuomas.
//
Posted in:
Quantification and Ontological Commitment
Quine’s views on quantification and ontological commitment are very much present in the contemporary debate, i.e. ’to be is to be the value of a (bound variable)’. We will not focus on the historical details though. The primary purpose is to remind you of the background and terminology. We will also critically engage with the Quinean conception of ontological commitment and consider the role of quantification in formulating ontological questions.
Compulsory reading:
- K. Fine (2009), ’The Question of Ontology.’ In Chalmers, Manley and Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (OUP). http://bit.ly/nfpl5B
Suggested readings include:
- T. Crane (2011), ’Existence and Quantification Reconsidered.’ In Tahko (Ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (CUP). http://bit.ly/oF4D0E
- K. Fine (2006), ‘Relatively Unrestricted Quantification.’ In A. Rayo and G. Uzquiano (Eds.), Absolute Generality (OUP). http://bit.ly/tCDCNh
- W. V. O. Quine (1948), ’On What There Is.’ Review of Metaphysics. Reprinted in 1953 From a LogicalPoint of View (Harvard). http://bit.ly/EcQ24
- A. Rayo (2007), ’Ontological Commitment.’ Philosophy Compass. http://bit.ly/qNUyqd
- S. Soames (2009), ’Ontology, Analyticity, and Meaning: the Quine-Carnap Dispute.’ In Chalmers, Manley and Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (OUP). http://bit.ly/ovue7I
Metaphysical Realism and Fundamentality
The notions of fundamentality, ground, essence, and priority, as well as dependence are central in many recent revisionary accounts of metaphysics and its methodology. We will look into some recent positive suggestions which attempt to defend metaphysical realism in terms of these notions.
Compulsory reading:
- T. Sider (Forthcoming), Writing the Book of the World. Preface and Chapters 1-2 (Chapter 8 recommended). http://bit.ly/ogkWB5
Suggested readings include:
- K. Fine (2001), ’The Question of Realism.’ Philosophers Imprint. http://bit.ly/qtHkmN
- K. Fine (2010), ‘Some Puzzles of Ground.’ Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 51, no. 1. http://bit.ly/rAzTgu
- K. Fine (2011), ’What Is Metaphysics?’. In Tahko (Ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (CUP). http://bit.ly/vg1JRB
- K. Fine (Forthcoming), ‘The Pure Logic of Ground’. Review of Logic. http://bit.ly/rZvjqA
- K. Koslicki (Forthcoming), ’Varieties of Ontological Dependence.’ In Correia and Schnieder (Eds.), Grounding and Explanation (CUP). http://bit.ly/pNwoWN
- E. J. Lowe (2009), ‘Ontological Dependence’. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://bit.ly/Wyi2L
- J. Schaffer (2003), ‘Is There a Fundamental Level?’ Noûs. http://bit.ly/tneJ6s
- J. Schaffer (2009), ’On What Grounds What.’ In Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (OUP). http://bit.ly/p6pVhM
- K. Trogdon (Forthcoming), ‘An Introduction to Grounding.’ In Hoeltje, Schnieder, and Steinberg (Eds.) Basic Philosophical Concepts (Philosophia Verlag, Munich). http://bit.ly/suFN9M
Deflationism About Metaphysics
Deflationism about metaphysics claims that metaphysical questions have been illegitimately inflated – either they are not substantial at all, have somehow been misformulated, or they should be answered strictly in terms of linguistic or conceptual content. We will consider some deflationist challenges.
Compulsory reading:
- T. Hofweber (2009), ’Ambitious, Yet Modest, Metaphysics.’ In Chalmers, Manley and Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (OUP). http://bit.ly/nyCEEr
Suggested readings include:
- E. Hirsch (2009), ’Ontology and Alternative Languages.’ In Chalmers, Manley and Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (OUP).
- T. Sider (Forthcoming), Writing the Book of the World. Chapter 5, possibly Chapter 9 (selectively). http://bit.ly/ogkWB5
- A. L. Thomasson (2009), ’The Easy Approach to Ontology.’ Axiomathes 19 (1). http://bit.ly/uOafxc
- S. Yablo (1998), ’Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?’ Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 72. http://bit.ly/uTc7mR
Modal Knowledge and Metaphysical Knowledge
Knowledge of modality and metaphysical modality in particular is considered to be an important form of metaphysical knowledge. But there are difficult questions regarding modal epistemology, e.g. does conceivability entail metaphysical possibility, what is the relationship between modality and essence, and what is the role of counterfactual knowledge?
Compulsory reading:
- T. Williamson (2007), ’Philosophical Knowledge and Knowledge of Counterfactuals’. Grazer Philosophische Studien. Or Chapter 5 of his The Philosophy of Philosophy (2007, Blackwell). http://bit.ly/pzBNHg
Suggested readings include:
- K. Fine (1994), ’Essence and Modality’. Philosophical Perspectives 8. http://bit.ly/pEJSZH
- Gendler and Hawthorne (2002), ’Introduction: Conceivability and Possibility’. In Gendler and Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Up to section 4. http://bit.ly/rp9Duq
- S. Roca-Royes (Forthcoming), ’Modal Knowledge and Counterfactual Knowledge’. Logique et Analyse. http://bit.ly/u44PTQ
- T. E. Tahko (Forthcoming), ’Counterfactuals and Modal Epistemology’. Grazer Philosophische Studien. http://bit.ly/r6x094
Metaphysics and Natural Science
We can only scratch the surface of the debate concerning the relationship between metaphysics and natural science, but this is obviously an important topic. Much of the recent deflationism in metaphysics springs from the claim that metaphysicians have not taken recent scientific results into account, at least not in sufficient detail. Could science do the work of metaphysics, or can there be input from metaphysics to science?
Compulsory reading:
- Ladyman and Ross (2007), Every Thing Must Go. Chapter 1 (or at least sections 1.1 – 1.4) http://bit.ly/rzcxkJ
Suggested readings include:
The Possibility of Metaphysics
Finally, I will present what I believe to be the most promising line in defence of the possibility of metaphysics. This consists of adopting a Finean understanding of the relationship between essence and modality, and of a broadly Aristotelian methodology of metaphysics.
Compulsory reading:
- E. J. Lowe (2008), ’Two Notions of Being: Entity and Essence’. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. http://bit.ly/vhUvIz
Suggested readings include:
- K. Fine (2011), ’What Is Metaphysics?’. In Tahko (Ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (CUP). http://bit.ly/vg1JRB
- T. Sider (Forthcoming), Writing the Book of the World. Chapter 8. http://bit.ly/ogkWB5
- T. E. Tahko (2011), ’In Defence of Aristotelian Metaphysics’. In Tahko (Ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (CUP). http://bit.ly/qV2dp7