Dan Marshall

The modal theory holds that facts (properties) are identical iff they are necessarily equivalent (coextensive). One of the most prominent arguments against the modal theory is Elliot Sober’s dual-detector argument. According to this argument, the fact that some particular thing is a triangle is distinct from the necessarily equivalent fact that it is a trilateral, since it is only the former fact that causes an output of a certain machine. I argue that the dual-detector argument fails, in part because whatever initial plausibility it has relies on the failure to take into consideration a needed relativisation to times and the failure to distinguish between two facts collectively causing a fact and their conjunction singly causing it. I also argue that variants of the argument are equally unsuccessful.

What is it for y to be objectively qualitatively overall at least as similar to x as z is? This paper defends a version of the following answer: it is for y to be at least as similar to x as z is in every qualitative respect. On the version defended in this paper, this analysis arguably entails that it is possible for some things to objectively qualitatively resemble each other more than they do other things. However, it also arguably entails that, given how the world contingently is, many things (if not all things) are incomparable in objective qualitative resemblance, where y and z are so incomparable to x iff: (i) it is not the case that y is at least as objectively qualitatively similar to x as z is, and (ii) it is not the case that z is at least as objectively qualitatively similar to x as y is.

Modal realists face a puzzle. For modal realism to be justified, modal realists need to be able to give a successful reduction of modality. A simple argument, however, appears to show that the reduction they propose fails. In order to defend the claim that modal realism is justified, modal realists therefore need to either show that this argument fails, or show that modal realists can give another reduction of modality that is successful. I argue that modal realists cannot do either of these things and that, as a result, modal realism is unjustified and should be rejected.

A de re objectual subject matter is a subject matter of the form how a1, a2 … are, whereas a de dicto objectual subject matter is a subject matter of the form how Fs are. An objectual subject matter is either a de re or de dicto objectual subject matter. This paper provides a systematic theory of aboutness towards objectual subject matters which, if correct, illuminates both the nature of intrinsicality and the general nature of aboutness. In addition to the familiar distinction between partial and complete aboutness, I argue that there is a further orthogonal distinction between pervasive and hereditary aboutness, resulting in four ways in which a sentence, proposition or state of affairs can be about an objectual subject matter. I state and defend a number of basic principles concerning these varieties of aboutness as they apply to objectual subject matters and propose non-reductive analyses of them in terms of each other. I also propose an analysis of aboutness towards de re objectual subject matters in terms of aboutness towards de dicto objectual subject matters and put forward an attractive solution to a puzzle regarding aboutness due to Nelson Goodman.

A common objection to Humeanism about natural laws is that, given Humeanism, laws cannot help explain their instances, since, given the best Humean account of laws, facts about laws are explained by facts about their instances rather than vice versa. After rejecting a recent influential reply to this objection that appeals to the distinction between scientific and metaphysical explanation, I will argue that the objection fails by failing to distinguish between two types of facts, only one of which Humeans should regard as laws. I will then conclude by rebutting a variant of this objection that appeals to a principle of metaphysical explanation recently put forward by Kit Fine

A number of philosophers have recently claimed that intrinsicality can be analysed in terms of the metaphysical notion of grounding. Since grounding is a hyperintensional notion, accounts of intrinsicality in terms of grounding, unlike most other accounts, promise to be able to discriminate between necessarily coextensive properties that differ in whether they are intrinsic. They therefore promise to be compatible with popular metaphysical theories that posit necessary entities and necessary connections between wholly distinct entities, on which it is plausible that there are such properties. This paper argues that this promise is illusory. It is not possible to give an analysis of intrinsicality in terms of grounding that is consistent with these theories. Given an adequate analysis should be compatible with these theories, it follows that it is not possible to analyse intrinsicality in terms of grounding

According to the modal theory of facts and states of affairs, two facts or states of affairs are identical iff they are necessarily equivalent. One important argument against the modal theory is the causal argument of John Perry, which can also be applied with equal strength to a number of more moderate-grain theories of facts and states of affairs. I argue that, at least in its original form, the causal argument is unsound. I also argue that, while the argument can be modified so that it avoids the problems of the original version of the argument, such modifications are at best only successful if they appeal to additional considerations involving either grounding or aboutness. Moreover, I argue that incorporating such considerations into the causal argument allows it to refute its targeted theories only if such considerations by themselves refute these theories. If this is correct, then the causal argument is at best superfluous and we should focus on these other considerations when evaluating these theories. The broader lesson from this is arguably that, in order to best evaluate these theories of facts and states of affairs, we shouldn’t focus on arguments involving causation, but we should instead focus on arguments that involve other notions, such as grounding and aboutness.

It is often held that identity properties like the property of being identical to Paris are intrinsic. It is also often held that, while some logically uninstantiable properties are intrinsic, some logically uninstantiable properties are non-intrinsic. The combination of these views, however, raises a problem, since virtually every existing account of intrinsicality fails to analyse a notion of intrinsicality on which both these views are true. In this paper, I argue that, given the orthodox theory of counterlogicals, there is no notion of intrinsicality on which both these views are true. If this argument is sucessful, then, at least given orthodoxy about counterlogicals, we face no challenge in analysing a notion of intrinsicality on which both these views are true, since there is no such notion. In addition, if we are also convinced that there is a notion of intrinsicality on which one of these views is true and a notion of intrinsicality on which the other of these views is true, we should hold that there is more than one notion of intrinsicality.