Operands and Instances

Fritz, P.

doi:10.1017/s175502032100040x

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The argument is sometimes named after both Russell and Myhill, since it was rediscovered, apparently independently, by Myhill (1958). A more detailed presentation of this argument in the present setting of plural propositional quantification can be found in Fritz (forthcoming b).…”

Section: The Inconsistency Of Immediate Groundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ground and Grain

Fritz

2021

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The facts we encounter in our lives are not completely chaotic. From the fact that this is red, we can infer the fact that something is red. We draw on such connections in providing explanations: something is red because this is red. Such an explanation may be used merely to record how we came to know the explanandum -in this case, the fact that something is red. But it seems that the connection between something being red and this being red on which the explanation draws is not itself dependent on our or any other agent's cognitive attitudes to these facts. Doesn't this being red make it the case that something is red, in a way which is entirely independent of us?Clearly, there is a connection between this being red and something being red that is independent of us: if this is red, then something is red. This has nothing to do with us. And it is no accident: necessarily, if this red, then something is red. But some metaphysicists have recently argued that there is an important sense in which this being red makes it the case that something is red which is not captured by such material and modal connections. In the relevant sense, 2 + 2 = 4 is taken to make it the case that 2 + 2 = 4 or Socrates was a philosopher, but not vice versa: that 2 + 2 = 4 or Socrates was a philosopher is not taken to make it the case that 2 + 2 = 4. Assuming that it is necessary that 2 + 2 = 4, the two claims are necessarily materially equivalent, so there seems to be no way of capturing their

show abstract

Section: The Inconsistency Of Immediate Groundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It can also be shown that this inconsistency essentially arises out of combining these two principles, as each of them is consistent on its own. I do so in Fritz (forthcoming b).…”

Section: The Inconsistency Of Immediate Groundmentioning

confidence: 99%