Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Shamik Dasgupta (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69dab63378a3e0e288684077 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20141119/1037
Shamik Dasgupta
The Journal of Philosophy
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...