Dependence and Fundamentality

  • Justin Zylstra University of Alberta
Keywords: dependence, fundamentality, Aristotelian metaphysics

Abstract

I argue that dependence is neither necessary nor sufficient for relative fundamentality. I then introduce the notion of 'likeness in nature' and provide an account of relative fundamentality in terms of it and the notion of dependence. Finally, I discuss some puzzles that arise in Aristotle's Categories, to which the theory developed is applied.

References

Ackrill, J. (1963). Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione: Translated with Notes and Glossary, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Barnes, E. (2012). Emergence and fundamentality, Mind 121: 873-901.

Bennett, K. (2011a). By our bootstraps, Philosophical Perspectives 25: 27-41.

Bennett, K. (2011b). Construction area (no hard hat required), Philosophical Studies 154: 79-104.

Cameron, R. (2008). Turtles all the way down: Regress, priority and fundamentality in metaphysics, Philosophical Quarterly 58: 1-14.

Corkum, P. (2008). Aristotle on ontological dependence, Phronesis 53: 65-92.

Correia, F. (2006). Generic essence, objectual essence, and modality, Nous 40: 753-767.

Dillon, J. (1990). Dexippus: On Aristotles Categories, Duckworth.

Fine, K. (1995a). The logic of essence, Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 241-273.

Fine, K. (1995b). Ontological dependence, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95: 269-290.

Fine, K. (2009). The question of ontology, in D. Chalmers, D. Manley and R. Wasserman (eds), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, Oxford University Press, pp. 157-177.

Fine, K. (2010). Towards a theory of part, Journal of Philosophy 107: 559-589.

Fine, K. (2012). A guide to ground, in F. Correia and B. Schnieder (eds), Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-80.

Koslicki, K. (2012). Varieties of ontological dependence, in F. Correia and B. Schnieder (eds), Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, Cambridge University Press, pp. 186-2013.

Koslicki, K. (2013). Ontological dependence: An opinionated survery, in M. Hoeltje, B. Schnieder and A. Steinberg (eds), Varieties of Dependence, Philosophia Verlag, Munich, pp. 31-64.

Koslicki, K. (forthcoming). The coarse-grainedness of grounding, Oxford Studies in Metaphysics.

Linsky, B. and Zalta, E. (1994). In defense of the simplest quantified modal logic, in J. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives 8: Philosophy of Logic and Language, Atascadero, Ridgeview, pp. 431-458.

Porphyry (1992). On Aristotle’s Categories, Cornell University Press. Translated by Strange, S.

Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what, in D. Chalmers, D. Manley and R. Wasserman (eds), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, Oxford University Press, pp. 347-383.

Tahko, T. (2012). Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press.

Published
2015-07-05
How to Cite
Zylstra, J. (2015). Dependence and Fundamentality. Studia Philosophica Estonica, 7(2), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.12697/spe.2014.7.2.02