Louis deRossett (University of Vermont)

Metaphysics and Epistemology Group Talk

Jackman Humanities Building

170 St. George Street

Room 418

Abstract:

Consider the kinds of macroscopic concrete objects that common sense
and the sciences allege to exist: tables, raindrops, tectonic plates,
galaxies, and the rest. Are there any such things?  Opinions
differ. Ontological liberals say they do; ontological radicals say
they don't. Liberalism seems favored by its plausible acquiescence to
the dictates of common sense abetted by science; radicalism by its
ontological parsimony. Priority theorists claim we can have the
virtues of both views. They hold that tables, raindrops, etc., exist,
but they aren't fundamental. The ontological liberal's ontology
provides the correct inventory of existent individuals. The
ontological radical's more restricted ontology provides the correct
inventory of fundamental individuals. The priority theorist claims
that the derivative individuals are ``no addition in being'' to the
fundamental ones, so we can have our cake and eat it too. It would be
nice if priority theorists were right. In this paper I argue, with
regret, that they are not. One upshot is that the sort of explanations
which underwrite the priority theorist's distinction between
fundamental and derivative individuals do not mitigate our
ontological commitments. Another is that we still have to choose
between the charms of liberalism and radicalism.

A copy of a working draft on which the talk will be based is available at:
http://www.uvm.edu/~lderosse/priority.pdf