Philosophical Studies

, Volume 173, Issue 1, pp 21–37 | Cite as

There is no special problem with metaphysics

  • Karen Bennett


I argue for the claim in the title. Along the way, I also address an independently interesting question: what is metaphysics, anyway? I think that the typical characterizations of metaphysics are inadequate, that a better one is available, and that the better one helps explain why metaphysics is no more problematic than the rest of philosophy.


Metametaphysics Metaontology Nature of metaphysics 



Thanks to Elizabeth Barnes, Ted Sider, and audiences at Notre Dame, the University of Michigan, the 2014 Pacific APA, and the 41st annual Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy. Special thanks to Thomas Hofweber, my commentator at Oberlin, Rohan Sud, my commentator at Michigan, and Daniel Nolan and Sara Bernstein, my commentators at the APA.


  1. Barnes, E. (2014). Going beyond the fundamental: Feminism in contemporary metaphysics. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 114, 335–351.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, K. (2009). Composition, colocation, and metaontology. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett, K. (2011). Construction area: No hard hat required. Philosophical Studies, 154, 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, K. ms. Making Things Up. Under contract with Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cameron, R. (2008). Turtles all the way down: Regress, priority, and fundamentality. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnap, R. (1956). Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Meaning and necessity: A study in semantics and modal logic (pp. 203–221). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Conee, E. (2005). What is metaphysics? In E. Conee & T. Sider (Eds.), Riddles of existence (pp. 197–206). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, J., & Sosa, E. (1999). Metaphysics: An Anthology (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loux, M. (2006). Metaphysics: A contemporary introduction (3rd ed.). NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Merricks, T. (2013). Three comments on Writing the Book of the World. Analysis, 73, 722–736.Google Scholar
  14. Schaffer, J. (2003). Is there a fundamental level? Noûs, 37, 498–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what.  In D. Chalmers, D. Manley & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schaffer, J. (2010). Monism: The priority of the whole. The Philosophical Review, 119, 31–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sider, T. (2008). Introduction. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 1–7). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Sider, T. (2011). Writing the book of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sider, T. (2013). Symposium on Writing the book of the world. Analysis 73: 751–770.Google Scholar
  20. Strawson, P. (1959). Individuals. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thomasson, A. (2013). Norms and necessity. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 51, 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Inwagen, P. (1998). The nature of metaphysics. In S. Laurence & C. MacDonald (Eds.), Contemporary readings in the foundations of metaphysics (pp. 11–21). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. van Inwagen, P. (2007). Metaphysics. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2013 ed.),

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations