It has been suggested that many philosophical theses—physicalism, normative naturalism, phenomenalism, and so on—should be understood in terms of ground. Against this, Ted Sider (2011) has argued that ground is ill-suited for this purpose. Here I develop Sider’s objection and offer a response. In doing so I develop a view about the role of ground in philosophy, and about the content of these distinctively philosophical theses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shamik Dasgupta (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: