Philosophical Studies

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 7–19

Truthmaker commitments

Article

Abstract

On the truthmaker view of ontological commitment [Heil (From an ontological point of view, 2003); Armstrong (Truth and truthmakers, 2004); Cameron (Philosophical Studies, 2008)], a theory is committed to the entities needed in the world for the theory to be made true. I argue that this view puts truthmaking to the wrong task. None of the leading accounts of truthmaking—via necessitation, supervenience, or grounding—can provide a viable measure of ontological commitment. But the grounding account does provide a needed constraint on what is fundamental. So I conclude that truthmaker commitments are not a rival to quantifier commitments, but a needed complement. The quantifier commitments are what a theory says exists, while the truthmaker commitments are what a theory says is fundamental.

Keywords

Truthmaker Commitment Grounding Fundamental 

References

  1. Aristotle. (1984). Categories. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1, pp. 3–24). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, D. M. (2004). Truth and truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bigelow, J. (1988). The reality of numbers: A physicalist’s philosophy of mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bricker, P. (2006). The relation between general and particular: Entailment vs supervenience. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 2, 251–287.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, R. (2008). Truthmakers and ontological commitment: Or how to deal with complex objects and mathematical ontology without getting into trouble. Philosophical Studies, 140, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cameron, R., & Barnes, E. (2007). A critical study of John Heil’s ‘From an ontological point of view’. SWIF Philosophy of Mind Review, 6, 22–30.Google Scholar
  8. Hawthorne, J. (2002). Blocking definitions of materialism. Philosophical Studies, 110, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heil, J. (2003). From an ontological point of view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kim, J. (1993). Postscripts on supervenience. In Supervenience and mind: Selected philosophical essays (pp. 161–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Leibniz, G. W. F. (1960). Discourse on metaphysics. In The Rationalists (pp. 409–453). New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  12. Leuenberger, S. (forthcoming). Ceteris Absentibus Physicalism. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 4.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1999). Noneism or allism? In Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 152–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. (2001). Truthmaking and difference-making. Nous, 35, 602–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McLaughlin, B., & Bennett, K. (2005). Supervenience. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/supervenience/. Accessed 21 April 2008.
  16. Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parsons, J. (1999). There is no ‘Truthmaker’ argument against nominalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quine, W. V. O. (1963). On what there is. In from a logical point of view (pp. 1–19). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Schaffer, J. (forthcoming). The least discerning and most promiscuous truthmaker. Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, B. (1999). Truthmaker realism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77, 274–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy RSSSAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations