more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 17285

[filed under theme 7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 1. Grounding / a. Nature of grounding ]

Full Idea

We might think of strict ground as moving us down in the explanatory hierarchy. ...Weak ground, on the other hand, may also move us sideways in the explanatory hierarchy.

Gist of Idea

'Strict' ground moves down the explanations, but 'weak' ground can move sideways

Source

Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.05 'Weak')

Book Ref

'Metaphysical Grounding', ed/tr. Correia,F/Schnieder,B [CUP 2012], p.52


A Reaction

This seems to me rather illuminating. For example, is the covering law account of explanation a 'sideways' move in explanation. Are inductive generalities mere 'sideways' accounts. Both fail to dig deeper.


The 25 ideas with the same theme [how we should understand the grounding relation]:

Men say they prefer order, not realising that we imagine the order [Spinoza]
The ground of a thing is not another thing, but the first thing's substance or rational concept [Hegel, by Houlgate]
Creation produced a network or web of determinations [Weil]
2+2=4 is necessary if it is snowing, but not true in virtue of the fact that it is snowing [Fine,K]
If you say one thing causes another, that leaves open that the 'other' has its own distinct reality [Fine,K]
An immediate ground is the next lower level, which gives the concept of a hierarchy [Fine,K]
'Strict' ground moves down the explanations, but 'weak' ground can move sideways [Fine,K]
We learn grounding from what is grounded, not what does the grounding [Fine,K]
If you make 'grounding' fundamental, you have to mention some non-fundamental notions [Sider on Fine,K]
Something is grounded when it holds, and is explained, and necessitated by something else [Fine,K, by Sider]
Formal grounding needs transitivity of grounding, no self-grounding, and the existence of both parties [Fine,K]
Things could be true 'in virtue of' others as relations between truths, or between truths and items [Rosen]
Different types of 'grounding' seem to have no more than a family resemblance relation [MacBride]
Which has priority - 'grounding' or 'truth-making'? [MacBride]
As causation links across time, grounding links the world across levels [Schaffer,J]
If ground is transitive and irreflexive, it has a strict partial ordering, giving structure [Schaffer,J]
Grounding is unanalysable and primitive, and is the basic structuring concept in metaphysics [Schaffer,J]
Priority was a major topic of dispute for scholastics [Pasnau]
Avoid 'in virtue of' for grounding, since it might imply a reflexive relation such as identity [Audi,P]
Ground relations depend on the properties [Audi,P]
A ball's being spherical non-causally determines its power to roll [Audi,P]
Ground is irreflexive, asymmetric, transitive, non-monotonic etc. [Audi,P]
The best critique of grounding says it is actually either identity or elimination [Audi,P]
Is existential dependence by grounding, or do grounding claims arise from existential dependence? [Correia/Schnieder]
Grounding is intended as a relation that fits dependences between things [Baron/Miller]