more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 17274

[filed under theme 7. Existence / C. Structure of Existence / 1. Grounding / c. Grounding and explanation ]

Full Idea

For philosophers interested in explanation - of what accounts for what - it is largely through the notion of ontological ground that such questions are to be pursued. Ground, if you like, stands to philosophy as cause stands to science.

Gist of Idea

Philosophical explanation is largely by ground (just as cause is used in science)

Source

Kit Fine (Guide to Ground [2012], 1.02)

Book Ref

'Metaphysical Grounding', ed/tr. Correia,F/Schnieder,B [CUP 2012], p.40


A Reaction

Why does the ground have to be 'ontological'? It isn't the existence of the snow that makes me cold, but the fact that I am lying in it. Better to talk of 'factual' ground (or 'determinative' ground), and then causal grounds are a subset of those?


The 21 ideas from 'Guide to Ground'

Is there metaphysical explanation (as well as causal), involving a constitutive form of determination? [Fine,K]
2+2=4 is necessary if it is snowing, but not true in virtue of the fact that it is snowing [Fine,K]
Each basic modality has its 'own' explanatory relation [Fine,K]
Ground is best understood as a sentence operator, rather than a relation between predicates [Fine,K]
If grounding is a relation it must be between entities of the same type, preferably between facts [Fine,K]
Philosophical explanation is largely by ground (just as cause is used in science) [Fine,K]
We can only explain how a reduction is possible if we accept the concept of ground [Fine,K]
Even a three-dimensionalist might identify temporal parts, in their thinking [Fine,K]
If you say one thing causes another, that leaves open that the 'other' has its own distinct reality [Fine,K]
Realist metaphysics concerns what is real; naive metaphysics concerns natures of things [Fine,K]
If mind supervenes on the physical, it may also explain the physical (and not vice versa) [Fine,K]
Truths need not always have their source in what exists [Fine,K]
If the truth-making relation is modal, then modal truths will be grounded in anything [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]
Logical consequence is verification by a possible world within a truth-set [Fine,K]
Facts, such as redness and roundness of a ball, can be 'fused' into one fact [Fine,K]
Every necessary truth is grounded in the nature of something [Fine,K]
Only metaphysical grounding must be explained by essence [Fine,K]
We explain by identity (what it is), or by truth (how things are) [Fine,K]
We learn grounding from what is grounded, not what does the grounding [Fine,K]