more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
It may be that the two forms of grounding have a different source; the one from the bottom up is required for the constitution of the thing to be intelligible; the one from the top down is required for the essence of the thing to be intelligible.
Gist of Idea
Maybe bottom-up grounding shows constitution, and top-down grounding shows essence
Source
Kit Fine (Aristotle on Matter [1992], 2)
Book Ref
-: 'Mind' [-], p.43
A Reaction
[He cites Aristotle Met. 1019a8-10 in support] Close reading of Fine would be needed to elucidate this properly, but it is a suggestive line of thought about how we should approach grounding.
| 17262 | Aristotle's formal and material 'becauses' [aitiai] arguably involve grounding [Aristotle, by Correia/Schnieder] |
| 17265 | Philosophical proofs in mathematics establish truths, and also show their grounds [Bolzano, by Correia/Schnieder] |
| 14268 | Maybe bottom-up grounding shows constitution, and top-down grounding shows essence [Fine,K] |
| 17274 | Philosophical explanation is largely by ground (just as cause is used in science) [Fine,K] |
| 17290 | Only metaphysical grounding must be explained by essence [Fine,K] |
| 17727 | We can learn about the world by studying the grounding of our concepts [Jenkins] |
| 17296 | We must accept grounding, for our important explanations [Audi,P] |
| 17268 | Grounding is metaphysical and explanation epistemic, so keep them apart [Correia/Schnieder] |