Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 79, Issue 1, pp 227–240 | Cite as

From Grounding to Supervenience?

  • Stephan LeuenbergerEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The concept of supervenience and a regimented concept of grounding are often taken to provide rival explications of pre-theoretical concepts of dependence and determination. Friends of grounding typically point out that supervenience claims do not entail corresponding grounding claims. Every fact supervenes on itself, but is not grounded in itself, and the fact that a thing exists supervenes on the fact that its singleton exists, but is not grounded in it. Common lore has it, though, that grounding claims do entail corresponding supervenience claims. In this article, I show that this assumption is problematic. On one way of understanding it, the corresponding supervenience claim is just an entailment claim under a different name. On another way of understanding it, the corresponding claim is a distinctive supervenience claim, but its specification gives rise to what I call the "reference type problem": to associate the classes of facts that are the relata of grounding with the types of facts that are the relata of supervenience. However it is understood, supervenience rules out prima facie possibilities: alien realizers, blockers, heterogeneous realizers, floaters, and heterogeneous blockers. Instead of being rival explications of one and the same pre-theoretical concept, grounding and supervenience may be complementary concepts capturing different aspects of determination and dependence.

Keywords

Actual World Counterpart Theorist Global Supervenience Unit Class Humean Supervenience 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bricker, P. (2006). The relationship between the general and particular: Entailment vs. supervenience. In: D. W. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 2, pp. 251–87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Correia, F. (2005). Existential dependence and cognate notions. Munich: Philosophia.Google Scholar
  3. Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorr, C. (2005). Propositions and counterpart theory. Analysis, 65, 210–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fine, K. (1981). First-order modal theories I-sets. Nous, 15, 177–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosophers Imprint, 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  7. Fine, K. (2012). A guide to ground. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality (pp. 37–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hawthorne, J. (2002). Blocking definitions of materialism. Philosophical Studies, 110, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leuenberger, S. (2008). Ceteris absentibus physicalism. In Z. Dean (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 4, pp. 145–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Leuenberger, S. Grounding and necessity. Inquiry (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1994). Humean supervenience debugged. Mind, 103, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McLaughlin, B. P. (1984). Perception, causation, and supervenience. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 9, 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McLaughlin, B., & Bennett, K. (2011). Supervenience. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter).Google Scholar
  15. Papineau, D. (2008). Must a physicalist be a microphysicalist? In J. Hohwy & J. Kallestrup (Eds.), Being reduced (pp. 126–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Post, J. F. (1999). Is supervenience asymmetric? Manuscrito, 22, 305–344.Google Scholar
  17. Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In B. Hale & A. Hoffmann (Eds.), Modality. Metaphysics, logic, and epistemology (pp. 109–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics. New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sharvy, R. (1968). Why a class can’t change its members. Nous, 2, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skiles, A. (2012). Getting grounded: Essays in the metaphysics of fundamentality. PhD thesis. Notre Dame University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy, School of HumanitiesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations