more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Explaining why ADAM ate the apple is a different matter from explaining why he ATE the apple, and from why he ate THE APPLE. ...In my view the best explanations incorporate ....contrastive information.
Gist of Idea
Explaining 'Adam ate the apple' depends on emphasis, and thus implies a contrast
Source
Jonathan Schaffer (Grounding, Transitivity and Contrastivity [2012], 4.3.1)
Book Ref
'Metaphysical Grounding', ed/tr. Correia,F/Schnieder,B [CUP 2012], p.131
A Reaction
But why are the contrasts Eve, or throwing it, or a pear? It occurs to me that this is wrong! The contrast is with anything else which could have gone in subject, verb or object position. It is a matter of categories, not of contrasts.
Related Idea
Idea 19158 'Humanity belongs to Socrates' is about humanity, so it's a different proposition from 'Socrates is human' [Davidson]
17304 | As causation links across time, grounding links the world across levels [Schaffer,J] |
17306 | If ground is transitive and irreflexive, it has a strict partial ordering, giving structure [Schaffer,J] |
17305 | I take what is fundamental to be the whole spatiotemporal manifold and its fields [Schaffer,J] |
17307 | Nowadays causation is usually understood in terms of equations and variable ranges [Schaffer,J] |
17308 | Explaining 'Adam ate the apple' depends on emphasis, and thus implies a contrast [Schaffer,J] |