Philosophical Studies

, Volume 164, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Game called on account of fog: metametaphysics and epistemic dismissivism

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Is arguing over ontology a mistake? A recent proposal by Karen Bennett suggests that some metaphysical disputes, such as those over constitution and composition, can be dismissed on epistemic grounds. Given that both sides in a dispute try to minimize the differences between them, there are no good metaphysical grounds for choosing between them. In this paper, I expand on her epistemic dismissivism, arguing that given the Quinean conception of the task and method of metaphysics, we are warranted in believing that all ontological disputes will end in a draw, even if they have not yet done so. By a draw, I mean that while both sides in a dispute are genuinely disagreeing about what there is and there are still moves open to them, there are no moves remaining that will advance the discourse further.

Keywords

Metaphysics Ontology Metametaphysics Methodology Quine 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bennett, K. (2009). Composition, colocation, and metaontology. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 38–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cameron, R. (2012). How to be a nominalist and a fictional realist. In C. M. Uidhir (Ed.), Art and abstract objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. J., Manley, D., & Wasserman, R. (Eds.). (2009). Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hirsch, E. (2005). Physical-object ontology, verbal disputes, and common sense. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1, 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hirsch, E. (2009). Ontology and alternative languages. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 231–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Paul, L. A. (2012). Metaphysics as modeling: The handmaiden’s tale. Philosophical Studies, 160(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sainsbury, R. M. (2010). Fiction and fictionalism. In J. L. Bermudez (Ed.), New problems of philosophy. Texas: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Thomasson, A. L. (1999). Fiction and metaphysics. Cambridge studies in philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Thomasson, A. L. (2003). Fictional characters and literary practices. British Journal of Aesthetics, 43(2), 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thomasson, A. L. (2009). Answerable and unanswerable questions. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 444–472). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. van Inwagen, P. (2003). Existence, ontological commitment, and fictional entities. In M. J. Loux & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), The oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 131–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Voltolini, A. (2006). How ficta follow fiction: A syncretistic account of fictional entities. philosophical studies series. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Walton, K. L. (2006). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wolterstorff, N. (1980). Works and worlds of art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Zalta, E. N. (2000). The road between pretense theory and object theory. In A. Everett & T. Hofweber (Eds.), Empty names, fiction, and the puzzles of non-existence. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Zalta, E. N. (2003). Referring to fictional characters. Dialectica, 57, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Weber State UniversityOgdenUSA

Personalised recommendations