Gideon Rosen

Region R Question: How many objects — entities, things — are contained in R? Ignore the empty space. Our question might better be put, 'How many material objects does R contain?' Let's stipulate that A, B and C are metaphysical atoms: absolutely simple entities with no parts whatsoever besides themselves. So you don't have to worry about counting a particle's top half and bottom half as different objects. Perhaps they are 'point-particles', with no length, width or breadth. Perhaps they are extended in space without possessing spatial parts (if that is possible). Never mind. We stipulate that A, B and C are perfectly simple. We also stipulate that they are connected as follows. A and B are stuck together in such a way that when a force is applied to one of them, they move together 'as a unit'. Moreover, the two of them together exhibit behavior that neither would exhibit on its own — Perhaps they emit a certain sound, or glow in the dark — whereas C is..

Region R Question: How many objects — entities, things — are contained in R? Ignore the empty space. Our question might better be put, 'How many material objects does R contain?' Let's stipulate that A, B and C are metaphysical atoms: absolutely simple entities with no parts whatsoever besides themselves. So you don't have to worry about counting a particle's top half and bottom half as different objects. Perhaps they are 'point-particles', with no length, width or breadth. Perhaps they are extended in space without possessing spatial parts (if that is possible). Never mind. We stipulate that A, B and C are perfectly simple. We also stipulate that they are connected as follows. A and B are stuck together in such a way that when a force is applied to one of them, they move together 'as a unit'. Moreover, the two of them together exhibit behavior that neither would exhibit on its own — Perhaps they emit a certain sound, or glow in the dark — whereas C is..

This paper takes up a neglected problem for metaethical noncognitivism: the characterization of the acceptance states for agent-centered normative theories like Rational Egoism. If Egoism is a coherent view, the non-cognitivist needs a coherent acceptance state for it. This can be provided, as Dreier and Gibbard have shown. But those accounts fail when generalized, assigning the same acceptance state to normative theories that are clearly distinct, or assigning no acceptance state to theories that look to be intelligible. The paper makes the case for this and then asks: What should we conclude if the problem cannot be solved? We might conclude that since Egoism is clearly a coherent view, the argument amounts to a refutation of noncognitivism. But we suggest another possibility. There is, on reflection, something incoherent, or at least odd, in standard formulations of Egoism; noncognitivism predicts this and so provides an intriguing explanation for this fact.

Viewed from a suitable distance, David Lewis's ontological scheme is simplicity itself. Absolutely everything that exists, according to Lewis, is either a spatiotemporal particular, or a set theoretic construction from such particulars, or a mereological aggregate of such items. Set theoretic constructionalism is not an incidental feature of Lewis's system. The master argument of On the Plurality of Worlds is that a pluriverse composed of infinitely many concrete universes constitutes a “paradise for philosophers. Given his other views, his account of classes has profound implications for general metaphysics, implying as it does an account of the nature of properties and instantiation, propositions and propositional truth, the nature of events, and so on. But Lewis does not consider those implications. The aim of this chapter is to close the circle by bringing Lewis's mature account of sets into contact with his larger ontological scheme.

Alan Weir: Quine's Naturalism: Starting with the distinction between epistemological and ontological naturalism, this chapter focuses most on Quine's epistemological naturalism, not the ontological anti‐naturalism he thought it leads to. It is argued that naturalized epistemology is not central to Quine's epistemology. Quine's key epistemological principle is: follow the methods of science, and only those. Can Quine demarcate scientific methods from non‐scientific ones? The problems which have been raised here, for example in the case of mathematics, are considered. A main theme is the relationship between Quine's naturalism and reductionist forms of “scientistic” naturalism. Quine is generally taken to be an anti‐reductionist, unsurprisingly given his explicit anti‐reductionist pronouncements from “Two Dogmas” onward. It is argued that the situation is more complex than this and that key Quinean arguments are driven by a positivistic reductionism he never entirely broke free from.

This paper defends the idea that there might be vagueness or indeterminacy in the world itself--as opposed to merely in our representations of the world--against the charges of incoherence and unintelligibility. First we consider the idea that the world might contain vague properties and relations ; we show that this idea is already implied by certain well-understood views concerning the semantics of vague predicates (most notably the fuzzy view). Next we consider the idea that the world might contain vague objects ; we argue that an object is indeterminate in a certain respect (colour, size, etc.) just in case it is a borderline case of a maximally specific colour (size, etc.) property. Finally we consider the idea that the world as a whole might be indeterminate; we argue that the world is indeterminate just in case it lacks a determinate division into determinate objects.

This paper defends the idea that there might be vagueness or indeterminacy in the world itself---as opposed to merely in our representations of the world---against the charges of incoherence and unintelligibility. First we consider the idea that the world might contain vague *properties and relations*; we show that this idea is already implied by certain well-understood views concerning the semantics of vague predicates (most notably the fuzzy view). Next we consider the idea that the world might contain vague *objects*; we argue that an object is indeterminate in a certain respect (colour, size, etc.) just in case it is a borderline case of a maximally specific colour (size, etc.) property. Finally we consider the idea that the *world as a whole* might be indeterminate; we argue that the world is indeterminate just in case it lacks a determinate division into determinate objects.

This chapter explores bridge-law non-naturalism: the view that when a particular thing possesses a moral property or stands in a moral relation, this fact is metaphysically grounded in non-normative features of the thing in question together with a general moral law. Any view of this sort faces two challenges, analogous to familiar challenges in the philosophy of science: to specify the form of the explanatory laws, and to say when a fact of that form qualifies as a law. The chapter explores three strategies for answering these questions, all of which maintain that a moral law is a true generalization of the form [It is normatively necessary that whatever ϕ‎s is F].

ABSTRACT Bennett argues that the various building relations are all directed, necessitating and generative. This note provides interpretations of these conditions different from Bennett’s. According to Bennett, the full builders for an entity must necessitate its existence alone or in conjunction with other items that are not builders. I suggest that the full builders must necessitate the built item outright. According to Bennett, building is generative only in the sense that when the xx build y we are thereby “licensed” to say that y exists/obtains because the xx exist/obtain. I suggest that the building relations are unified by the fact that when the xx build y, the xx together metaphysically ground y. This entails, contra Bennett, that causation is not a building relation.

ABSTRACTThe paper explores Stephen Yablo's suggestion that ‘If-Thenism’ in the philosophy of mathematics is best formulated as the thesis that the real content of a mathematical claim C is the result of subtracting the potentially problematic metaphysical commitments of mathematics from C [Yablo 2017]. Yablo's proposal assumes that some propositions make others true. The present discussion assumes that propositions are coarse-grained sets of possible worlds and asks what Yablo's proposal looks like on that assumption. The conclusion is that the adequacy of the proposal turns on hard-to-settle questions about the truthmakers for propositions expressed by material conditionals.

The thesis defends the legitimacy of a 'platonistic' metaphysic, according to which there exist non-spatiotemporal 'abstract' objects, against a series of recent nominalist challenges. After distinguishing the nominalism I intend to discuss from a range of distinct views with which it has been historically confused, I take up the core of the nominalist's challenge: the suggestion that abstract objects, if there were such things, would be incapable of causal interaction with us and our surroundings, and hence unknowable. I suggest that every attempt to make this line of thought precise is either internally incoherent or depends upon an implausible conception of rational opinion. There is no a priori case for nominalism grounded in the theory of knowledge. I then take up Hartry Field's case for nominalism, which I take to be grounded in a broadly Quinean conception of philosophical and scientific methodology. And once again it is suggested that there is no way to develop the case in detail against the background of an independently plausible normative epistemology. Finally I take up one strand in the positive case for platonism: the 'Fregean' view that the existence of abstract objects is an analytic consequence of certain independently unproblematic states of affairs. I offer a reconstruction of certain arguments due to Crispin Wright, and tentatively endorse one development of this line of thought. If this is right, nominalism is not simply undermotivated: it is an essentially unstable account of what there is

Van Fraassen defines constructive empiricism as the view that science aims to produce empirically adequate theories. But this account has been misunderstood. Constructive empiricism in not, as it seems, a description of the intentional features of scientific practice, nor is it a normative prescription for their revision. It is rather a fiction about the practice of science that van Fraassen displays in the interests of a broader empiricism. The paper concludes with a series of arguments designed to show that constructive empiricism so understood is self-undermining