Philosophical Studies

, Volume 174, Issue 11, pp 2871–2889 | Cite as

Essentialist explanation

  • Martin GlazierEmail author


Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in metaphysical explanation, and philosophers have fixed on the notion of ground as the conceptual tool with which such explanation should be investigated. I will argue that this focus on ground is myopic and that some metaphysical explanations that involve the essences of things cannot be understood in terms of ground. Such ‘essentialist’ explanation is of interest, not only for its ubiquity in philosophy, but for its being in a sense an ultimate form of explanation. I give an account of the sense in which such explanation is ultimate and support it by defending what I call the inessentiality of essence. I close by suggesting that this principle is the key to understanding why essentialist explanations can seem so satisfying.


Essence Explanation Ground Ultimacy 



My thanks to Brookes Brown, Shamik Dasgupta, Louis deRosset, Kit Fine, Dan Fogal, Matthew Hanser, Kathrin Koslicki, Enoch Lambert, Jon Litland, Penelope Mackie, Barry Maguire, Carla Merino-Rajme, Asya Passinsky, Mike Raven, Jeff Russell, Ted Sider, Michael Strevens, Steve Swartzer, Peter Tan, to anonymous referees, and to audiences at the CUNY Graduate Center, the APA Pacific Division and the University of Helsinki.


  1. Bennett, K. (2011). By our bootstraps. Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Correia, F. (2006). Generic essence, objectual essence, and modality. Noûs, 40(4), 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dasgupta, S. (2014). The possibility of physicalism. Journal of Philosophy, 111(9), 557–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dasgupta, S. (2016). Metaphysical rationalism. Noûs, 50(2), 379–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. deRosset, L. (2013). Grounding explanations. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13(7), 1–26.Google Scholar
  6. Devitt, M. (1984). Realism and truth. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Dorr, C. (2004). Non-symmetric relations. In D. W. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fine, K. (1995a). The logic of essence. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine, K. (1995b). Senses of essence. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong, D. Raffman, & N. Asher (Eds.), Modality, morality, and belief: Essays in honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. Philosophical Review, 109(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  13. Fine, K. (2012a). Guide to ground. In F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fine, K. (2012b). The pure logic of ground. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fine, K. (2015). Unified foundations for essence and ground. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1(2), 296–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jenkins, C. (2011). Explanation and fundamentality. In B. Schnieder, A. Steinberg, & M. Hoeltje (Eds.), Ontological dependence, supervenience, and response-dependence. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Kment, B. (2014). Modality and explanatory reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koslicki, K. (2011). Essence, necessity and explanation. In T. E. Tahko (Ed.), Contemporary aristotelian metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Koslicki, K. (2015). The coarse-grainedness of grounding. In K. Bennett & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 9). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leuenberger, S. (2014). Grounding and necessity. Inquiry, 57(2), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Litland, J. E. (2017). Grounding ground. In K. Bennett & D. W. Zimmmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  22. Rawls, J. (1958). Justice as fairness. Philosophical Review, 67(2), 164–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In B. Hale & A. Hoffmann (Eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: The priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119(1), 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skiles, A. (2015). Against grounding necessitarianism. Erkenntnis, 80, 717–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Williamson, T. (1985). Converse relations. Philosophical Review, 94(2), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, J. (2014). No work for a theory of grounding. Inquiry, 57(5–6), 535–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations