Philosophical Studies

, Volume 154, Issue 1, pp 79–104 | Cite as

Construction area (no hard hat required)

  • Karen BennettEmail author


A variety of relations widely invoked by philosophers—composition, constitution, realization, micro-basing, emergence, and many others—are species of what I call ‘building relations’. I argue that they are conceptually intertwined, articulate what it takes for a relation to count as a building relation, and argue that—contra appearances—it is an open possibility that these relations are all determinates of a common determinable, or even that there is really only one building relation.


Composition Constitution Supervenience Grounding Dependence Fundamentality 


  1. Armstrong, D. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Universals and scientific realism (Vol. II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, D. M. (1986). In defence of structural universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64, 85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, L. (1997). Why constitution is not identity. The Journal of Philosophy, 94, 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, L. (2000). Persons and bodies: A constitution view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, L. (2002). Replies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64, 623–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baxter, D. (1988a). Identity in the loose and popular sense. Mind, 97, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baxter, D. (1988b). Many-one identity. Philosophical Papers, 17, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bedau, M. (1997). Weak emergence. Philosophical Perspectives, 11, 375–399.Google Scholar
  10. Bennett, K. (2004). Spatio-temporal coincidence and the grounding problem. Philosophical Studies, 118(3), 339–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bennett, K. MS a. Building and causing.Google Scholar
  12. Bennett, K. MS b. Flavors of fundamentality.Google Scholar
  13. Bishop, R. (2008). Downward causation in fluid convection. Synthese, 160, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bontly, T. (2002). The supervenience argument generalizes. Philosophical Studies, 109, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chalmers, D. (2006). Strong and weak emergence. In P. Clayton & P. Davies (Eds.), The re-emergence of emergence (pp. 244–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosopher’s Imprint, 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  17. Fine, K. Unpublished. Towards a theory of part.Google Scholar
  18. Funkhouser, E. (2006). The determinate-determinable relation. Noûs, 40, 548–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillett, C. (2002). The dimensions of realization: A critique of the standard view. Analysis, 62, 316–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillett, C. (2003). The metaphysics of realization, multiple realizability, and the special sciences. The Journal of Philosophy, 100, 591–603.Google Scholar
  21. Gillett, C. MS. A whole lot more from ‘nothing but’: Scientific composition and the possibility of strong emergence.Google Scholar
  22. Gillett, C. (Forthcoming). Multiply realizing scientific properties and their instances. Philosophical Psychology.Google Scholar
  23. Goldman, A. (1970). A theory of action. NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Hawley, K. (2006). Principles of composition and criteria of identity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 84, 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnston, M. (1992). Constitution is not identity. Mind, 101, 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim, J. (1988). Supervenience for multiple domains. Reprinted (1993) in Supervenience and mind (pp. 109–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, J. (1993). The non-reductivist’s troubles with mental causation. Reprinted (1993) in Supervenience and mind (pp. 336–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kim, J. (1997). Does the problem of mental causation generalize? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 97, 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim, J. (1998). Mind in a physical world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, J. (1999). Making sense of emergence. Philosophical Studies, 95, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, J. (2003). Blocking causal drainage and other maintenance chores with mental causation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, or something near enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, J. (2006). Emergence: Core ideas and issues. Synthese, 15, 547–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. McDaniel, K. (2004). Modal realism with overlap. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDaniel, K. (2009a). Ways of being. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 290–319). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. McDaniel, K. (2009b). Structure-making. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKay, T. (2006). Plural predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKay, T. MS. Stuff and coincidence.Google Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, B. (1992). The rise and fall of British emergentism. In A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, & J. Kim (Eds.), Emergence or reduction? New essays on the prospects for nonreductive physicalism (pp. 49–93). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. McLaughlin, B., & Bennett, K. (2005). Supervenience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition) (E. N. Zalta, Ed.).
  43. Melnyk, A. (2003). A physicalist manifesto. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melnyk, A. (2006). Realization and the formulation of physicalism. Philosophical Studies, 131, 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Connor, T. (1994). Emergent properties. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31, 91–104.Google Scholar
  47. O’Connor, T., & Wong, H. Y. (2005). The metaphysics of emergence. Noûs, 39, 658–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paul, L. A. (2002). Logical parts. Noûs, 36, 578–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poland, J. (1994). Physicalism: The philosophical foundations. Oxford: Clarendon. Google Scholar
  50. Polger, T. (2004). Natural minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Polger, T. (2007). Realization and the metaphysics of mind. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Polger, T., & Shapiro, L. (2008). Understanding the dimensions of realization. The Journal of Philosophy, 105, 213–222.Google Scholar
  53. Rosen, G., & Dorr, C. (2002). Composition as a fiction. In R. Gale (Ed.), The blackwell guide to metaphysics (pp. 151–174). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  54. Sanford, D. (2006). Determinates vs. determinables. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition) (E. N. Zalta, Ed.).
  55. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schaffer, J. (2010a). Monism: The priority of the whole. The Philosophical Review, 119, 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schaffer, J. (2010b). The least discerning and most promiscuous truthmaker. The Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schaffer, J. (Forthcoming). Grounding as the primitive concept of metaphysical structure.Google Scholar
  59. Sellars, W. (1962). Philosophy and the scientific image of man. Reprinted (1963) in Science, perception, and reality (pp. 1–40). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  60. Sharvy, R. (1983). Mixtures. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 44, 227–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shoemaker, S. (2003). Realization, microrealization, and coincidence. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shoemaker, S. (2007). Physical realization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sider, T. (2001). Four dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sider, T. (2002). Review of Lynne Rudder Baker, Persons and bodies. The Journal of Philosophy, 99, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sider, T. (2007). Parthood. The Philosophical Review, 116, 51–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sider, T. MS. Writing the book of the world.Google Scholar
  67. Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Turner, J. MS. Ontological pluralism.Google Scholar
  69. Van Gulick, R. (2001). Reduction, emergence, and other recent options on the mind-body problem: A philosophic overview. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 1–34.Google Scholar
  70. Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Van Inwagen, P. (1994). Composition as identity. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Varzi, A. (2006). Mereology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2006 Edition) (E. N. Zalta, Ed.).
  73. Wilson, J. MS. Fundamental determinables.Google Scholar
  74. Winston, M., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11, 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Witmer, G. MS. Realization and the promise of explanatory import.Google Scholar
  76. Yi, B.-U. (2005). The logic and meaning of plurals, part I. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 459–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zimmerman, D. (1995). Theories of masses and problems of constitution. The Philosophical Review, 104, 53–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zimmerman, D. (2002). Persons and bodies: Constitution without mereology? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sage School of PhilosophyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations