Indeterminacy and Failure of Grounding

Cases of grounding failure present a puzzle for fundamental metaphysics. Typically, solutions are thought to lie either in adding ontology such as haecceities or in re‐describing the cases by means of the ideology of metaphysical indeterminacy. The controversial status of haecceities has led some to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Theoria (Lund, Sweden) Sweden), 2019-08, Vol.85 (4), p.276-288
Main Authors: Assadian, Bahram, Nassim, Jonathan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
ground
grounding failure
haecceitism
metaphysical indeterminacy
referential indeterminacy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Cases of grounding failure present a puzzle for fundamental metaphysics. Typically, solutions are thought to lie either in adding ontology such as haecceities or in re‐describing the cases by means of the ideology of metaphysical indeterminacy. The controversial status of haecceities has led some to favour metaphysical indeterminacy as the way to solve the puzzle. We consider two further treatments of grounding failure each of which, we argue, is a more plausible alternative. As such, the initial dichotomy is a false one, and these alternative options deserve consideration before resorting to the heavyweight machinery of metaphysical indeterminacy.
ISSN:0040-5825
1755-2567
DOI:10.1111/theo.12196