Critiques realist views of grounding and explores anti-realist implications regarding definitions.
This paper puts forward an argument against realist views of grounding, which hinges on explanations based on so-called ‘real definitions’. I will provide some essential background, then phrase the argument, and show some anti-realist conclusions that can be drawn from it. Finally, I will deal with some potential objections, and I will discuss Correia’s [2017] view of real definitions, in order to show that despite appearances, the notion of grounding does not have any actual theoretical role within it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stefano Caputo (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: