Philosophical Studies

, Volume 172, Issue 8, pp 2025–2031 | Cite as

Priority monism and part/whole dependence



Priority monism is the view that the cosmos is the only independent concrete object. The paper argues that, pace its proponents, Priority monism is in conflict with the dependence of any whole on any of its parts: if the cosmos does not depend on its parts, neither does any smaller composite.


Priority monism Dependence Parts/wholes Schaffer, Jonathan 



This paper has started out during a stretch of collaborative work with Robert Schwartzkopff. I’d like to thank him for discussing the material at various stages of completion. Thanks are also due to audiences at the Hamburg metaphysics research seminar, and workshops in Essen and Mainz, as well as to three anonymous referees for very helpful comments. Work on this paper was partly funded by the DFG-ANR research project Nominalizations.


  1. Cameron, R. (2008). How to be a truthmaker maximalist. Noûs, 42, 410–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Correia, F. (2005). Existential dependence and cognate notions. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Correia, F., & Schnieder, B. (Eds.). (2012). Metaphysical grounding. Understanding the strcuture of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fine, K. (1995). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269–290.Google Scholar
  5. Fine, K. (2012). Guide to ground. In Correia & Schnieder (Eds.), Metaphysical grounding. Understanding the structure of reality (pp. 37–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibbard, A. (1975). Contingent identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 4, 187–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillett, C. (2007). Hyper-extending the mind? Philosophical Topics, 351, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jenkins, C. (2013). Explanation and fundamentality. In M. Hoeltje, B. Schnieder, & A. Steinberg (Eds.), Varieties of dependence. Ontological dependence, grounding, supervenience, response-dependence. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Künne, W. (1998). Substanzen und Adhärenzen. Zur Ontologie in Bolzanos Athanasia. In A. Newen & U. Meixner (Eds.), Philosophiegeschichte im Überblick (pp. 233–250). Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
  11. Lowe, E. J. (2010). Ontological dependence. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Paull, R. C., & Sider, T. (1992). In defense of global supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 833–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In B. Hale & A. Hoffmann (Eds.), Modality. Metaphysics, logic, and epistemology (pp. 109–135). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Schaffer, J. (2009a). On what grounds what. In D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics. New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Schaffer, J. (2009b). Spacetime the one substance. Philosophical Studies, 145, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schaffer, J. (2010a). The internal relatedness of all things. Mind, 119, 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schaffer, J. (2010b). The least discerning and most promiscuous truthmaker. Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schaffer, J. (2010c). Monism: The priority of the whole. Philosophical Review, 119, 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaffer, J. (2013). The action of the whole. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Supplementary, 87, 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schnieder, B. (2006). A certain kind of trinity: Dependence, substance, explanation. Philosophical Studies, 129, 393–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simons, P. (1987). Parts. A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations