Non-piecemeal Pluralism

The Monist (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
I argue that Schaffer fails to provide a non-question-begging argument for priority monism. Despite his suggestion to the contrary, Humean pluralists need not, and plausibly do not, endorse his tiling constraint on metaphysically basic objects. Moreover, the distinction between supervenience—of the sort at issue in Humean doctrine—and metaphysical necessitation—of the sort at issue in Schaffer’s tiling constraint—points toward an alternative treatment of the phenomena initially inspiring Schafferian monism. There is an important possibility, one that Humeans can or should embrace, that Schaffer overlooks when drawing his monistic conclusion.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MILNP-2
Upload history
First archival date: 2020-09-11
Latest version: 3 (2020-09-17)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-09-11

Total views
49 ( #44,600 of 52,662 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
49 ( #12,156 of 52,662 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.