Placement, Grounding, and Mental Content

  • Kelly Trogdon

Abstract

One central issue concerning philosophical methodology is this: what concepts should go into our philosophical toolbox? That is to say, what notions are appropriate to rely on in doing philosophy? This issue is relevant not only to how we should go about addressing philosophical problems but also how we’re to formulate those problems in the first place. There is a burgeoning literature on the notion of grounding. I’m a proponent of grounding — I think the notion of grounding is coherent and theoretically useful.1 Supposing that the notion of grounding belongs in our philosophical toolbox, what consequences might this have for familiar philosophical problems? In this chapter I focus on what Jackson (1998) calls placement problems - problems concerning how the manifest facts (e.g. facts concerning ordinary macroscopic objects, the mental, and the moral) “fit into” the world given that the world is ultimately physical in nature. If we formulate placement problems in terms of grounding, we should expect new possibilities to open up with respect to how to solve them. My goal in this chapter is to show that this is precisely what happens with respect to the content placement problem, the problem of how to fit facts concerning mental content into the actual world given that it’s ultimately physical in nature.

Keywords

Physical Fact Actual World Grounding Theory Explanatory Scheme Placement Problem 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, F. and K. Aizawa. 2010. ‘Causal Theories of Mental Content’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/content-causal/>.
  2. Audi, P. 2012. ‘Grounding: Toward a Theory of the In-Virtue-Of Relation’, Journal of Philosophy 109: 685–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydede,M. and G. Güzeldere. 2005. ‘Cognitive Architecture, Concepts, and Introspection: An Information-Theoretic Solution to the Problem of Phenomenal Consciousness’, Noûs 39: 197–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bliss, R. and K. Trogdon. 2014. ‘Metaphysical Grounding’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.Stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/grounding/>
  5. Bridges, J. 2006. ‘Does Informational Semantics Rest on a Mistake?’ Noûs 40: 522–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, M. and D. Liggins. 2012. ‘Recent Work on Grounding’, Analysis 72: 812–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Correia, F. and B. Schnieder. 2012. ‘Grounding: An Opinioned Introduction’, in (ed.) F. Correia and B. Schnieder, Grounding and Explanation (pp. 1–36). Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  8. Dasgupta, S. 2014. ‘On the Plurality of Grounds’, Philosophers’ Imprint 14: 1–28.Google Scholar
  9. Dretske, F. 1995. Naturalizing the Mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, K. 1994. ‘Essence and Modality’, Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fine, K. 2001. ‘The Question of Realism’, Philosophers’ Imprint 1: 1–30.Google Scholar
  12. Fine, K. 2012. ‘A Guide to Ground’, in (eds) F. Correia and B. Schnieder, Grounding and Explanation (pp. 37–80). Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J. 1990. ‘A Theory of Content II: The Theory’, in his A Theory of Content and Other Essays (pp. 89–136). MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. 1994. The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and its Semantics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fodor, J. 1997. ‘Special Sciences: Still Autonomous After All These Years’, Philosophical Perspectives 11: 149–163.Google Scholar
  16. Fodor, J. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  17. Gates, G. 1996. ‘The Price of Information’, Synthese 107: 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, F. 1998. From Metaphysics to Ethics. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  19. Nolan, D. 2014. ‘Hyperintensional Metaphysics’, Philosophical Studies 171: 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laurence, S. and E. Margolis. 2002. ‘Radical Concept Nativism’, Cognition 86: 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine, J. 2001. Purple Haze. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. 1983. ‘New Work For a Theory of Universals’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61: 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Litland, J. 2013. ‘On Some Counterexamples to the Transitivity of Grounding’, Essays in Philosophy 14/1: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raven, M. 2012. ‘In Defense of Ground’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90: 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raven, M. Forthcoming. ‘Ground’, Philosophy Compass.Google Scholar
  26. Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. Forthcoming. ‘Grounding is Not A Strict Order’, Journal of the American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
  27. Rosen, G. 2010. ‘Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction’, in (eds) R. Hale and A. Hoffman, Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, andEpistemology (pp. 109–136). Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  28. Rupert, R. 2008. ‘Causal Theories of Mental Content’, Philosophy Compass 3: 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ryder, D. 2009. ‘Representation II: Content’, in (eds) J. Symons and P. Calvo, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Psychology (pp. 251–279). Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Schaffer, J. 2009. ‘On What Grounds What’, in (eds) D. Chalmers et al., Metametaphysics (pp. 347–383). Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  31. Schaffer, J. 2012. ‘Grounding, Transitivity, and Contrastivity’, in Correia and Schnieder, pp. 122–138.Google Scholar
  32. Shapiro, S. 1997. Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  33. Trogdon, K. 2013a. ‘An Introduction to Grounding’, in (eds) M. Hoeltje, B. Schnieder, and A. Steinberg, Varieties of Dependence. Basic Philosophical Concepts, Philosophia Verlag: 97–122.Google Scholar
  34. Trogdon, K. 2013b. ‘Grounding: Necessary or Contingent?’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94: 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kelly Trogdon 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly Trogdon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations