Advertisement

Erkenntnis

pp 1–24 | Cite as

The Lump and the Ledger: Material Coincidence at Little-to-No Cost

  • Jonah GoldwaterEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

This paper aims to make headway on two related issues—one methodological, the other substantive. The former concerns cost–benefit analyses when applied to metaphysical theory choice. The latter concerns material coincidence, i.e., multiple objects occupying the same space at the same time, such as the statue and the clay from which it’s made. The issues are entwined as many reject coincidence on the grounds that it’s costly. I argue this judgment is unjustified. More generally, I set out and defend a framework for the use of cost–benefit analyses in metaphysics. The framework employs a fourfold division of pretheoretical costs and benefits (inconsistency or consistency with common sense), and theoretical costs and benefits (loss or gain of theoretical virtues such as simplicity). Yet these do not hold equal weight. Instead I argue that the appeal to theoretical benefits is illegitimate if the theory in question cannot first account for the relevant evidence or data, including, crucially, certain bits of pretheoretical or common knowledge. This is crucial because I not only argue that material coincidence is consistent with common sense, against what is widely believed, but that coincidence may even be a feature or implication of the common sense view. Put together, the result is that accepting an anti-coincidence theory for its putative theoretical virtues at the expense of common sense is an improper usage of the cost–benefit methodology. I instead conclude that material coincidence should be accepted with equanimity—which, after all, is free.

Notes

References

  1. Adler, M., & Posner, E. (Eds.). (2001). Cost-benefit analysis: Legal, economic, and philosophical perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1971). An introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. London: Hutchinson Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, L. R. (2002). The ontological status of persons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65(2), 370–388.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, S., & Jago, M. (2014). Monism and material constitution. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 95(2), 189–204.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, K. (2004). Spatio-temporal coincidence and the grounding problem. Philosophical Studies, 118, 339–371.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, K. (2009). Composition, collocation, and metaontology. In M. Chalmers & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 38–76). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berto, F., & Jago, M. (2018). Impossible worlds. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2018 edn.). The older 2013 version is available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/impossible-worlds/.
  8. Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., & Weimer, D. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis (Vol. 4). London: ‎Pearson Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, M. (1994). Preserving the principle of one object to a place. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54, 591–624.Google Scholar
  10. Chisholm, R. (1973). Parts as essential to their wholes. Review of Metaphysics, 26, 581–603.Google Scholar
  11. Cullen, S. (2010). Survey-driven romanticism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 275–296.Google Scholar
  12. Fine, K. (2003). The non-identity of a material thing and its matter. Mind, 112, 195–234.Google Scholar
  13. Fine, K. (2006). Arguing for non-identity: A response to King and Frances. Mind, 115, 1059–1082.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, M. (1989). On social reality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heller, M. (1990). The ontology of physical objects: Four-dimensional hunks of matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hempel, C. G. (1953). Reflections on Nelson Goodman’s: The structure of appearance. Philosophical Review, 62, 108–116.Google Scholar
  17. Hirsch, E. (2002). Against revisionary ontology. Philosophical Topics, 30, 103–127.Google Scholar
  18. Korman, D. (2009). Eliminativism and the challenge from folk belief. Nous, 43(2), 242–264.Google Scholar
  19. Korman, D. (2010). Strange kinds, familiar kinds, and the charge of arbitrariness. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 2010, 119–144.Google Scholar
  20. Korman, D., & Carmichael, C. (2017). What do the folk think about composition and does it matter? In D. Rose (Ed.), Experimental metaphysics (pp. 187–206). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Kukla, A. (1994). Non-empirical theoretical virtues and the argument from underdetermination. Erkenntnis, 41(2), 157–170.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1976). Survival and identity. In A. Rorty (Ed.), The identity of persons (pp. 17–40). Berkeley: Berkeley Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Lycan, W. G. (1998). Theoretical (epistemic) virtues. In T. Crane (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and Francis. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/theoretical-epistemic-virtues/v-1.
  25. Markosian, N. (2008). Restricted composition. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 321–340). Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  26. McDaniel, K. (2010). Parts and wholes. Philosophy Compass, 5(5), 412–425.Google Scholar
  27. McGrath, M. (2007). Four dimensionalism and the puzzles of coincidence. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 3, pp. 143–176). Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mishan, E. J., & Quah, E. (2007). Cost-benefit analysis (5th ed.). London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  30. Noonan, H. (1991). Indeterminate identity, contingent identity, and Abelardian predicates. Philosophical Quarterly, 41(163), 183–193.Google Scholar
  31. Rea, M. (2000). Constitution and kind membership. Philosophical Studies, 97, 169–193.Google Scholar
  32. Rescher, N. (1955). Axioms for the part relation. Philosophical Studies, 6, 8–11.Google Scholar
  33. Ritchie, K. (2015). The metaphysics of social groups. Philosophy Compass, 10(5), 310–321.Google Scholar
  34. Rose, D. (2015). Persistence through function preservation. Synthese, 192(1), 97–146.Google Scholar
  35. Rose, D., & Schaffer, J. (2017). Folk mereology is teleological. In D. Rose (Ed.), Experimental metaphysics (pp. 135–186). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  36. Rosen, G., & Dorr, C. (2002). Composition as a fiction. In R. Gale (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to metaphysics (pp. 151–174). ‎Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sider, T. (2009). Temporal parts. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 321–340). Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  39. Simons, P. M. (1987). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sosa, E. (1999). Existential relativity. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23(1), 132–143.Google Scholar
  41. Spelke, E. S. (1988). The origins of physical knowledge. In L. Weiskrantz (Ed.), Thought without language: A Fyssen foundation symposium (pp. 168–184).Google Scholar
  42. Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56.Google Scholar
  43. Thomasson, A. (2010). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Thomasson, A. (2015). Ontology made easy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tulodziecki, D. (2013). Underdetermination, methodological practices, and realism. Synthese, 190(17), 3731–3750.Google Scholar
  46. Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Varzi, A. (2019). Mereology. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2019 Edn). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/mereology/.
  48. Wasserman, R. (2018). Material constitution. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2018 edn.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/material-constitution/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe College of William and MaryWilliamsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations