Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–24 | Cite as

How to be an uncompromising revisionary ontologist

  • David Mark KovacsEmail author
Article
  • 132 Downloads

Abstract

Revisionary ontologies seem to go against our common sense convictions about which material objects exist. These views face the so-called Problem of Reasonableness: they have to explain why reasonable people don’t seem to accept the true ontology. Most approaches to this problem treat the mismatch between the ontological truth and ordinary belief as superficial or not even real. By contrast, I propose what I call the “uncompromising solution”. First, I argue that our beliefs about material objects were influenced by evolutionary forces that were independent of the ontological truth. Second, I draw an analogy between the Problem of Reasonableness and the New Evil Demon Problem and argue that the revisionary ontologist can always find a positive epistemic status to characterize ordinary people’s beliefs about material objects. Finally, I address the worry that the evolutionary component of my story also threatens to undermine the best arguments for revisionary ontologies.

Keywords

Debunking Material objects Nihilism Organicism New Evil Demon Problem Problem of Reasonableness Revisionary ontology Universalism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For many helpful comments on and discussions about this paper and its topic I’m especially indebted to Dan Korman and Ted Sider. Many thanks also to Jonathan Barker, Karen Bennett, Pat Bondy, Matti Eklund, Andrew Higgins, Mark Moyer, Steve Petersen, Nico Silins, Lu Teng, anonymous referees, and audiences at the 2015 CEU “Ontology and Metaontology” summer school, the department workshop at Cornell University, the 1st Epistemology of Metaphysics Workshop at the University of Helsinki, a conference titled “False but useful Beliefs” at the Regent’s University, London, the 2017 Eastern APA in Baltimore, and department colloquia at Bilkent University, the National University of Singapore and the University of Haifa.

References

  1. Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (1985). A rationale for reliabilism. Monist, 68, 246–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, D. (2010). You are simple. In R. C. Koons & G. Bealer (Eds.), The waning of materialism (pp. 161–174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benacerraf, P. (1973). Mathematical truth. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, K. (2009). Composition, colocation, and metaontology. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 38–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benovsky, J. (2015). From experience to metaphysics. Noûs, 49, 684–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonjour, L. (2003). A version of internalist foundationalism. In L. Bonjour & E. Sosa (Eds.), Epistemic justification. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, R. P. (2007). The contingency of composition. Philosophical Studies, 136, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cameron, R. P. (2008). Truthmakers and ontological commitment. Philosophical Studies, 140, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron, R. P. (2010). Quantification, naturalness and ontology. In A. Hazlett (Ed.), New waves in metaphysics (pp. 8–26). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Chisholm, R. M. (1976). Person and object. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke-Doane, J. (2012). Morality and mathematics: The evolutionary challenge. Ethics, 122, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke-Doane, J. (2017). Modal objectivity. Noûs.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12205.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, S., & Comesaña, J. (forthcoming). Rationality and truth. In J. Dutant & F. Dorsch (Eds.), The new evil demon problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, S., & Lehrer, K. (1983). Justification, truth, and coherence. Synthese, 55, 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. deRosset, L. (2015). Analyticity and ontology. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 9, 129–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dorr, C. (2005). What we disagree about when we disagree about ontology. In M. E. Kalderon (Ed.), Fictionalism in metaphysics (pp. 234–286). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Eklund, M. (2002). Peter van Inwagen on material beings. Ratio, 15, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eklund, M. (2005). Fiction, indifference, and ontology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71, 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eklund, M. (2017). Review of ‘Ontology made easy’ by Amie L. Thomasson. Notre Dame Philosophical Review. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ontology-made-easy/. Accessed 9 April 2019.
  22. Engel, M. (1992). Personal and doxastic justification. Philosophical Studies, 67, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics, and modality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Fumerton, R. A. (1995). Metaepistemology and skepticism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goldman, A. (1988). Strong and weak justification. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harman, G. (1977). The nature of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hawley, K. (2001). How things persist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heller, M. (1990). The ontology of physical objects. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hirsch, E. (2002). Against revisionary ontology. Philosophical Topics, 30, 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirsch, E. (2005). Physical-object ontology, verbal disputes, and common sense. Philosophy and Penomenological Research, 70, 67–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Horgan, T., & Potrč, M. (2008). Austere realism. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hudson, H. (2001). A materialist metaphysics of the human person. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Huemer, M. (2001). Skepticism and the veil of perception. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  35. Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  36. Keller, J. A. (2015). Semantics, paraphrase, and ontology. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 9, 89–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Korman, D. Z. (2006). What externalists should say about dry earth. Journal of Philosophy, 103, 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Korman, D. Z. (2008). Unrestricted composition and restricted quantification. Philosophical Studies, 140, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Korman, D. Z. (2009). Eliminativism and the challenge from folk belief. Noûs, 43, 242–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Korman, D. Z. (2014). Debunking perceptual beliefs about ordinary objects. Philosophers’ Imprint, 14(13), 1–21.Google Scholar
  41. Korman, D. Z. (2015). Fundamental quantification and the language of the ontology room. Noûs, 49, 298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Korman, D. Z. (2016). Objects: Nothing out of the ordinary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Korman, D. Z. (forthcoming). Easy ontology without deflationary metaontology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOREOW-2.
  44. Korman, D. Z., & 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.Google Scholar
  45. Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Liggins, D. (2008). Nihilism without self-contradiction. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 62, 177–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Littlejohn, C. (2009). The externalist’s demon. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39, 399–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Littlejohn, C. (forthcoming). A plea for epistemic excuses. In Dutant and Dorsch. https://philpapers.org/rec/LITAPF.
  49. Majors, B., & Sawyer, S. (2005). The epistemological argument for content externalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Markosian, N. (1998). Brutal composition. Philosophical Studies, 92, 211–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Masrour, F. (2011). Is perceptual phenomenology thin? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 83, 366–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McGrath, M. (2005). No objects, no problem? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McGrath, M. (2008). Conciliatory metaontology and the vindication of common sense. Noûs, 42, 482–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McGrath, M. (2018). Looks and perceptual justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96, 110–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller, K. (2009). Defending contingentism in metaphysics. Dialectica, 63, 23–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moyer, M. (2006). Statues and lumps: A strange coincidence. Synthese, 148, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nolan, D. (2005). David Lewis. Chesham: Acumen.Google Scholar
  59. O’Leary-Hawthorne, J., & Michael, M. (1996). Compatibilist semantics in metaphysics: A case study. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Osborne, R. C. (2016). Debunking rationalist defenses of common-sense ontology: An empirical approach. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 7, 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Parsons, J. (2013). Conceptual conservativism and contingent composition. Inquiry, 56, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34, 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rea, M. C. (1998). In defense of mereological universalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rose, D., & Schaffer, J. (2017). Folk mereology is teleological. Noûs, 51, 238–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosen, G., & Dorr, C. (2002). Composition as a fiction. In R. M. Gale (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to metaphysics (pp. 151–174). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  66. Roskies, A. L. (1999). The binding problem. Neuron, 24, 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sattig, T. (2015). The double lives of objects: An essay in the metaphysics of the ordinary world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 38–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Schechter, J. (2010). The reliability challenge and the epistemology of logic. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sider, T. (1993). Van Inwagen and the possibility of gunk. Analysis, 53, 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sider, T. (2013). Against parthood. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 8, 237–293.Google Scholar
  74. Siegel, S. (2010). The contents of perceptual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Silins, N. (2013). The significance of high-level content. Philosophical Studies, 162, 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Singh, M., & Hoffman, D. D. (2013). Natural selection and shape perception. In S. J. Dickinson & Z. Pizlo (Eds.), Shape perception in human and computer vision (pp. 171–185). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sosa, E. (2003). Epistemic justification: Internalism vs. externalism, foundations vs. virtues. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  78. Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127, 109–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Taraborelli, D. (2002). Feature binding and object perception. Does object awareness require feature conjunction? In European Society for Philosophy and Psychology 2002, Jul 2002, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  81. Thomasson, A. L. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomasson, A. L. (2015). Ontology made easy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Travis, C. (2004). The silence of the senses. Mind, 113, 57–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Unger, P. (1979). There are no ordinary things. Synthese, 41, 117–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Uzquiano, G. (2004). Plurals and simples. Monist, 87, 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. van Cleve, J. (1986). Mereological essentialism, mereological conjunctivism, and identity through time. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 11, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
  88. van Inwagen, P. (2014). Introduction: Inside and outside the ontology room. In Existence (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vavova, E. (2014). Debunking evolutionary debunking. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 9, 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wedgwood, R. (2002). Internalism explained. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. White, R. (2010). You just believe that because…. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 573–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Williams, J. R. G. (2006). Illusions of gunk. Philosophical Perspectives, 20, 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Williamson, T. (2018). Counterpossibles. Topoi, 37, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wright, C. (2004). Warrant for nothing (and foundations for free)? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 78, 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations