Brute necessity

Cleve, James Van

doi:10.1111/phc3.12516

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, however, Fine's view has come under a different form of attack. Rather than criticizing the claim that the counterexamples discussed in his (1994) lead to a rejection of the modal account of essence, and as a further consequence to (FE), Leech (2018), Mackie (forthcoming), Noonan (2018), Romero (2019), Van Cleve (2018) and Wildman (2018) directly criticize (FE). Roughly, this line of criticism has it that essences cannot ground or explain modality or that the Finean cannot consistently argue that they do 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essence, Explanation, and Modality

Wallner¹,

Vaidya²

2020

Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, Kit Fine's (1994) view that modal truths are true in virtue of, grounded in, or explained by essentialist truths has been under attack. In what follows we offer two responses to the wave of criticism against his view. While the first response is pretty straightforward, the second is based on the distinction between, what we call, Reductive Finean Essentialism and Non-Reductive Finean Essentialism. Engaging the work of Bob Hale on Non-Reductive Finean Essentialism, we aim to show that the arguments against Fine's view are unconvincing, while we acknowledge the presence of a deep standoff between the two views.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essence, Explanation, and Modality

Wallner¹,

Vaidya²

2020

Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 5 Note that the LG-argument is not the only argument that has been raised against Ground by Status In particular, Glazier ( 2017a ) also develops a parallel argument for the case of existential generalizations. For some further arguments, see Glazier ( 2017a ); Kappes ( 2020 ), Kappes ( 2021 ); Van Cleve ( 2018 ); and Zylstra ( 2019 ). For a response to Zylstra, see Vogt ( forthcoming ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground by Status

Vogt

2024

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the explanatory role of ‘status-truths’ such as essence-truths, necessity-truths and law-truths? A plausible principle, suggested by various authors, is Ground by Status, according to which status truths ground their prejacents. For instance, if it is essential to a that p, then this grounds the fact that p. But Ground by Status faces a forceful objection: it is inconsistent with widely accepted principles regarding the logic of grounding (Glazier in Philos Stud 174(11):2871–2889, 2017a, Synthese 174(198):1409–1424, 2017b; Kappes in Synthese 199(1–2):2575–2595, 2020, Philos Stud 178(4):1267–1284, 2021). I defend Ground by Status against this objection.

show abstract

“…philosophical subdisciplines. Threats to free will and moral responsibility are invigorated since prominent versions of compatibilism still require some alternative possibilities (e.g., Lewis, 1981;Sartorio, 2016); counterfactual reasoning is rendered vacuous; and the metaphilosophical landscape is seismically altered if we are not constrained by the norm of explaining necessity (see Van Cleve, 2018, for examples) and if possibilities cannot feature as premises in arguments (see van Inwagen, 1998, for examples).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case for Necessitarianism by Amy Karofsky (Routledge, 2021). ISBN 9781032026169

Kimpton-Nye

2023

Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

putting qualitiesor, at least, these apparently off-putting qualities did not get an airing.The elephant roaming between the lines of this review is that Richard J. Bernstein died in July 2022, at the age of ninety. From what he says in the Preface, he must have been working on the book at least into his (very) late eighties. The age of the author makes the book more impressive, but to dwell on that point risks a condescension it in no way merits. This is a wide-ranging, detailed andfor the most partaccessible book, whose author can find his way nimbly around seven very different thinkers. If I'm not sure who its readership will be, that has as much to do with my sense of what and how philosophers read, now, as it does about the merits of the book.

show abstract

Brute necessity

Cited by 15 publications

References 76 publications

Essence, Explanation, and Modality

Essence, Explanation, and Modality

Ground by Status

A Case for Necessitarianism by Amy Karofsky (Routledge, 2021). ISBN 9781032026169

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About