Coincident Objects and The Grounding Problem

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

coincident objects, the grounding problem, essence, modality, material objects.

Abstract

Pluralists believe in the occurrence of numerically distinct spatiotemporally coincident objects. They argue that there are coincident objects that share all physical and spatiotemporal properties and relations; nevertheless, they differ in terms of modal and some other profiles. Appealing to the grounding problem according to which nothing can ground the modal differences between coincident objects, monists reject the occurrence of coincident objects. In the first part of this paper, I attempt to show that the dispute between monists and pluralists cannot be settled based upon the grounding problem tout court. I argue that the grounding problem or a very similar problem is a challenge for all monists and pluralists alike if they are ontologically committed to the existence of composite objects as independent entities. In the final part, adopting the Aristotelian account of essence, I propose a solution that enables pluralists to plausibly ground modal differences between coincident objects.  

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Bennett, K. (2004a). Spatio-temporal Coincidence and the Grounding Problem, Philosophical Studies, 118(3), 339-371.
Bennett, K. (2004b). Global Supervenience and Dependence, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 68(3), 510–529.
Burke, M.  (1992). Copper Statues and Pieces of Copper: A Challenge to the Standard Account, Analysis, 52(1), 12-17.
Fine, K. (1994a). Essence and Modality, Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 8 (Logic and Language), pp. 1-16.
Fine, K. (1994b). Senses of essence, in W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Modality, Morality and Belief: Essays in honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus (pp. 55-73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbard, A. (1975). Contingent identity, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4(2), pp. 187–221.
Hashemi, A. (2017). How to Deal with the Puzzle of Coincident Objects, unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.
Hashemi, A. (2013). Quine and Aristotelian Essentialism, Logical Studies, 4(1), 129-144.
Heller, M. (1990). The Ontology of Physical Objects: Four-Dimensional Hunks of Matter, Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press,
Koslicki, K. (2018). Towards a Hylomorphic Solution to the Grounding Problem, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements to Philosophy 82: 333-364.
Lowe, E. J. (2018). Metaphysics as the Science of Essence, in Carruth, Gibb, and Heil (eds.), Ontology, Modality, and Mind: Themes from the Metaphysics of E. J. Lowe, (pp. 14-34), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olson, E. (2001). Material Coincidence and the Indiscernibility Problem, Philosophical Quarterly, 57(204), 337-355.
Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction, in Hale and Hoffman (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, logic and epistemology (pp. 109-136), Oxford: Oxford University Press.,
Sidelle, A. (2010). Modality and Object, Philosophical Quarterly, 60(238), 109-125.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Journal of Philosophical Investigations
Volume 16, Issue 41 - Serial Number 41
Special Issue
English Special Issue: Philosophy of Education
2023
Pages 164-173

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics