Eliminativism, Cosmopsychism, and Concluding Remarks

  • Jiri BenovskyEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)


The no-self view eliminates the self and it thus eliminates the combination problem involving subjects, but a more general eliminativism is needed if one wants to answer all versions of the combination problem. Cosmopsychism is a brand of monism which mirrors panpsychism. It then has to face the mirror versions of the combination problems. In this chapter, I discuss how these mirror views compare to each other.


  1. Benovsky J (2018) Eliminativism, objects, and persons: the virtues of non-existence. Routledge, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalmers D (2016) The combination problem for panpsychism. In: Bruntrup G, Jaskolla L (eds) Panpsychism. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman S (2014) The real combination problem: panpsychism, micro-subjects, and emergence. Erkenntnis 79:19–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heller M (1990) The ontology of physical objects: four-dimensional hunks of matter. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Heller M (1998) Five layers of interpretation for possible worlds. Philos Stud 90(2):205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Heller M (2008) The donkey problem. Philos Stud 140(1):83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horgan T and Potrč M (2000) Blobjectivism and indirect correspondence, Facta Philosophica 2:249–70Google Scholar
  8. Horgan T and Potrč M (2008) Austere realism: Contextual semantics meets minimal ontology, Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Horgan T and Potrč M (2012) Existence monism trumps priority monism, in Goff, P. 2012. Spinoza on Monism, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  10. Korman D (2015) Objects: nothing out of the ordinary. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Le Bihan B (2013) Why a gunk world is compatible with nihilism about objects. Studia Philoso Est 6(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Le Bihan B (2015) No physical particles for a dispositional monist? Philos Pap 44(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Le Bihan B (2016) Super-relationism: combining eliminativism about objects and relationism about spacetime. Philos Stud 173:2151–2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Le Bihan B, Barton A (forthcoming) Analytic metaphysics versus naturalized metaphysics: the relevance of applied ontology. ErkenntnisGoogle Scholar
  15. Merricks T (2001) Objects and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Schaffer J (2007) From nihilism to monism. Australas J Philos 85(2):175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schaffer J (2010) Monism: the priority of the whole. Philos Rev 119:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schaffer J (2014) Monism. Stanf Encyclop Philos.
  19. Unger P (1979) There are no ordinary things, Synthese 41(2):117–154Google Scholar
  20. Van Inwagen P (1990) Material Beings. Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FribourgFribourgSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations