Bibliography

Tuomas E. Tahko

doi:10.1017/9781139924832.012

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 March 2023

Tuomas E. Tahko

Show author details

Tuomas E. Tahko: Affiliation:
University of Helsinki

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: An Introduction to Metametaphysics , pp. 243 - 254

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139924832.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle, . 1984. Metaphysics (Ross, W. D., trans.; revised by Barnes, J.). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Armstrong, D. M. 2004. Truth and Truthmakers, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, D. 2003. ‘Experiments and Thought Experiments in Natural Science,’ in Galavotti, M. C. (ed.), Observation and Experiment in the Natural and Social Sciences, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 232. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 209–225.Google Scholar

Audi, P. 2012. ‘A Clarification and Defense of the Notion of Grounding,’ in Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.), Metaphysical grounding. Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–121.CrossRef Google Scholar

Barrow, J. D. 2001. ‘Cosmology, Life, and the Anthropic Principle,’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 950, 139–153.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bealer, G. 1992. ‘The Incoherence of Empiricism,’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 66, 99–138.Google Scholar

Bealer, G. 1998. ‘Intuition and the Autonomy of Philosophy,’ in DePaul, M. and Ramsey, W. (eds.), Rethinking Intuition: The Psychology of Intuition and Its Role in Philosophical Inquiry. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 201–240.Google Scholar

Bealer, G. 2002. ‘Modal Epistemology and the Rationalist Renaissance,’ in Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press, pp. 71–125.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bealer, G. 2004. ‘The Origins of Modal Error,’ Dialectica 58.1, 11–42.Google Scholar

Bennett, K. 2009. ‘Composition, Colocation and Metaontology.’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 38–76.Google Scholar

Bennett, K. 2011. ‘By Our Bootstraps,’ Philosophical Perspectives 25, 27–41.Google Scholar

Benovsky, J. 2013. ‘From Experience to Metaphysics: On Experience-based Intuitions and their Role in Metaphysics,’ Noûs, (online) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Ben-Yami, H. 2004. Logic and Natural Language. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Ben-Yami, H. 2009. ‘Plural Quantification Logic: A Critical Appraisal,’ Review of Symbolic Logic 2.1, 208–232.Google Scholar

Berto, F. 2011. ‘Modal Meinongianism and Fiction: The Best of Three Worlds,’ Philosophical Studies 152, 313–334.Google Scholar

Berto, F. and Plebani, M.. 2015. Ontology and Metaontology: A Contemporary Guide. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Bird, A. 2007. Nature’s Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bliss, R. L. 2014. ‘Viciousness and Circles of Ground,’ Metaphilosophy 45.2, 245–256.Google Scholar

Bliss, R. L. 2013. ‘Viciousness and the Structure of Reality,’ Philosophical Studies 166.2, 399–418.Google Scholar

Bliss, R. L. and Trogdon, K.. 2014. ‘Metaphysical Grounding,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/grounding/Google Scholar

Bohm, D. 1984. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, (Second edn). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

BonJour, L. 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P., 2014. (eds.). Intuitions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bricker, P. 2014. ‘Ontological Commitment,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/ontological-commitment/Google Scholar

Callender, C. 2011. ‘Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics,’ in French, S. and Saatsi, J. (eds.), The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Science. London: Continuum, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar

Cameron, R. P. 2008. ‘Turtles All the Way Down: Regress, Priority and Fundamentality,’ Philosophical Quarterly 58, 1–14.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. 2012. Philosophy without Intuitions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1931. ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language’ (A. Pap, trans.), in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical positivism. New York: The Free Press, 1959, pp. 60–81; originally published in Erkenntnis 2.1 as ‘Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Analyse der Sprache,’ pp. 219–241.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1950. ‘Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.’ Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4; reprinted in his Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. University of Chicago Press, 1956.Google Scholar

Casullo, A. 2003. A Priori Justification. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Casullo, A. 2013. ‘Four Challenges to the A Priori–A Posteriori Distinction,’ Synthese, (online) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Casullo, A. and Thurow, J. C. 2013. (eds.), The A Priori in Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 1996. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2002. ‘Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?’, in Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press, pp. 145–200.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2006. ‘The Foundations of Two-Dimensional Semantics,’ in Garcia-Carpintero, M. and Macia, J. (eds.), Two-Dimensional Semantics: Foundations and Applications. Oxford University Press, pp. 55–140.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2009. ‘Ontological Anti-Realism,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 77–129.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2011. ‘Verbal Disputes,’ Philosophical Review 120.4, 515–566.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2014. ‘Intuitions in Philosophy: A Minimal Defense,’ Philosophical Studies 171.3, 535–544.Google Scholar

Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. 2009. (eds.). Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chudnoff, E. 2013. Intuition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cohnitz, D. 2006. ‘When are Discussions of Thought Experiments Poor Ones? A Comment on Peijnenburg and Atkinson,’ Journal for General Philosophy of Science 37.2, 373–392.Google Scholar

Cornell, E. A. and Wieman, C. E.. 1998. ‘The Bose–Einstein Condensate,’ Scientific American 278.3, 40–45.Google Scholar

Correia, F. 2008. ‘Ontological Dependence,’ Philosophy Compass 3, 1013–1032.Google Scholar

Correia, F. 2010. ‘Grounding and Truth-functions,’ Logique & Analyse 211, 251–279.Google Scholar

Correia, F. and Schnieder, B.. 2012. ‘Grounding: An Opinionated Introduction,’ in Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

Correia, F. 2012. (eds.). Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crane, T. 2013. The Objects of Thought. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Creath, R. ‘Logical Empiricism,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/logical-empiricism/Google Scholar

Daly, C. 2010. Introduction to Philosophical Methods. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar

Daly, C. 2012. ‘Scepticism about Grounding,’ in Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding. Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–100.Google Scholar

Daly, C. and Liggins, D.. 2014. ‘In Defence of Existence Questions,’ Monist 97.7, 460–478.Google Scholar

Davidson, D. 1987. ‘Knowing One’s Own Mind,’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 60.3, 441–458.Google Scholar

de Cruz, H. 2015. ‘Where Philosophical Intuitions Come From,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93.2, 233–249.Google Scholar

Dehmelt, H. 1989. ‘Triton,… Electron,… Cosmon,…: An Infinite Regression?’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86, 8618–8619.Google Scholar

Dennett, D. 2013. Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar

deRosset, L. 2013. ‘What Is Weak Ground?’, Essays in Philosophy 14.1, Article 2.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dixon, S. ‘What Is the Well-Foundedness of Grounding?’, Mind (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Dorato, M. and Morganti, M.. 2013. ‘Grades of Individuality. A Pluralistic View of Identity in Quantum Mechanics and in the Sciences,’ Philosophical Studies 163, 591–610.Google Scholar

Dorr, C. 2005. ‘What We Disagree about When We Disagree about Ontology,’ in Kalderon, M. E. (ed.), Fictionalism in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 234–286.Google Scholar

Dorr, C. 2010. ‘Review of Every Thing Must Go,’ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, see https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24377-every-thing-must-go-metaphysics-naturalized/Google Scholar

Dummett, M. 1981. Frege. Philosophy of Language, (Second edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Eklund, M. 2009. ‘Carnap and Ontological Pluralism,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 130–156.Google Scholar

Eklund, M. 2011. ‘Review of Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology,’ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, see https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24764-quantifier-variance-and-realism-essays-in-metaontology/Google Scholar

Eklund, M. 2013. ‘Carnap’s Metaontology,’ Noûs 47.2, 229–249.Google Scholar

Eklund, M. 2014. ‘Rayo’s Metametaphysics,’ Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 57.4, 483–497.Google Scholar

Enderton, H. B. 2012. ‘Second-order and Higher-order Logic,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/logic-higher-order/Google Scholar

Fine, K. 1994a. ‘Essence and Modality,’ Philosophical Perspectives 8, 1–16.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 1995. ‘Logic of Essence,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 24, 241–273.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 1994b. ‘Ontological Dependence,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95, 269–290.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 2001. ‘The Question of Realism,’ Philosophers Imprint 1, 1–30.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 2009. ‘The Question of Ontology,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 157–177.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 2010. ‘Towards a Theory of Part,’ Journal of Philosophy 107.11, 559–589.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 2012. ‘Guide to Ground,’ in Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding. Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–80.Google Scholar

Fine, K. 2012. ‘What Is Metaphysics?’, in Tahko, T. E. (ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 8–25.Google Scholar

Fiocco, M. O. 2007. ‘Conceivability, Imagination, and Modal Knowledge,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74.2, 364–380.Google Scholar

Fischer, R. W. and Leon, F. (eds.). 2015. Modal Epistemology After Rationalism, Synthese Library. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar

French, S. 2011. ‘Metaphysical Underdetermination: Why Worry?’, Synthese 180, 205–221.Google Scholar

French, S. 2014. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.). 2002. Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Georgi, H. 1989. ‘Effective Quantum Field Theories,’ in Davies, P. (ed.), The New Physics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 446–457.Google Scholar

Gibbard, A. 1975. ‘Contingent Identity,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 4, 187–221.Google Scholar

Hackett, J. 2007. ‘Locality and Translations in Braided Ribbon Networks,’ Classical and Quantum Gravity 24.23, 5757–5766.Google Scholar

Hale, B. 2013. Necessary Beings: An Essay on Ontology, Modality, and the Relations Between Them. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haug, M. C. (ed.). 2014. Philosophical Methodology: The Armchair or the Laboratory? Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hawley, K. 2006. ‘Science as a Guide to Metaphysics?’, Synthese 149.3, 451–470.Google Scholar

Hawthorne, J. 2008. ‘Three-dimensionalism vs. Four-Dimensionalism,’ in Sider, T., Hawthorne, J. and Zimmerman, D. W. (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 263–282.Google Scholar

Heil, J. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Heil, J. 2012. The Universe As We Find It. Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hirsch, E. 2002. ‘Quantifier Variance and Realism,’ Philosophical Issues 12, 51–73.Google Scholar

Hirsch, E. 2005. ‘Physical-Object Ontology, Verbal Disputes, and Common Sense,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70, 67–97.Google Scholar

Hirsch, E. 2009. ‘Ontology and Alternative Languages,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 231–259.Google Scholar

Hofweber, T. 2009. ‘Ambitious, Yet Modest, Metaphysics,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 260–289.Google Scholar

Horvath, J. and Grundmann, T. (eds.). 2012. Experimental Philosophy and Its Critics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hüttemann, A. and Papineau, D.. 2005. ‘Physicalism Decomposed,’ Analysis 65, 33–39.Google Scholar

Jackson, F. 1986. ‘What Mary Didn’t Know,’ The Journal of Philosophy 83, 291–295.Google Scholar

Jackson, F. 1998. From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Jenkins, C. S. 2010. ‘Concepts, Experience and Modal Knowledge,’ Philosophical Perspectives 24, 255–279.Google Scholar

Jenkins, C. S. 2010. ‘What Is Ontological Realism?’, Philosophy Compass 5/10, 880–890.Google Scholar

Jenkins, C. S. 2011. ‘Is Metaphysical Dependence Irreflexive?’, The Monist 94.2, 267–276.Google Scholar

Jenkins, C. S. 2014. ‘Intuition, “Intuition”, Concepts and the A Priori,’ in Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P. (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press, pp. 91–115.Google Scholar

Jenkins, C. S. I. 2014. ‘Merely Verbal Disputes,’ Erkenntnis 79.1, 11–30.Google Scholar

Kim, J. 2010. Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koslicki, K. 2005. ‘On the Substantive Nature of Disagreements in Ontology,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71, 85–105.Google Scholar

Koslicki, K. 2012. ‘Varieties of Ontological Dependence,’ in Correia, F. and Schnieder, B. (eds.), Metaphysical Grounding. Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–213.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kripke, S. 2013. Reference and Existence. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ladyman, J. 1998. ‘What Is Structural Realism?’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29, 409–424.Google Scholar

Ladyman, J. 2012. ‘Science, Metaphysics and Method,’ Philosophical Studies 160.1, 31–51.Google Scholar

Ladyman, J. and Ross, D. (with Spurrett, D. and Collier, J.). 2007. Every Thing Must Go. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lange, M. 2008. ‘Could the Laws of Nature Change?’, Philosophy of Science 75.1, 69–92.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 1990. ‘Noneism or Allism?’, Mind 99.393, 23–31.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2008. ‘Two Notions of Being: Entity and Essence,’ Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 83.62, 23–48.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2010. ‘Ontological Dependence,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/dependence-ontological/Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2011. ‘Locke on Real Essence and Water as a Natural Kind: A Qualified Defence,’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 85, 16–17.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2011. ‘The Rationality of Metaphysics,’ Synthese 178.1, 99–109.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2012. ‘What Is the Source of Our Knowledge of Modal Truths?’, Mind 121, 919–950.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. 2014. ‘Essence vs. Intuition: An Unequal Contest,’ in Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P. (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press, pp. 256–268.Google Scholar

Lowe, E. J. and McCall, S.. 2006. ‘3D/4D Controversy: A Storm in a Teacup,’ Noûs 40, 570–578.Google Scholar

Markosian, N. 2005. ‘Against Ontological Fundamentalism,’ Facta Philosophica 7, 69–84.Google Scholar

Markosian, N. 2014. ‘Time,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/time/Google Scholar

Marcus, R.B. 1967. ‘Essentialism in Modal Logic,’ Noûs 1.1, pp. 91–6.Google Scholar

Marsh, G. 2010. ‘Is the Hirsch–Sider Dispute Merely Verbal?’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88.3, 459–469.Google Scholar

Maudlin, T. 2007. The Metaphysics Within Physics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McDaniel, K. 2013. ‘Degrees of Being,’ Philosophers’ Imprint 13.19, 1–18.Google Scholar

McDaniel, K. ‘Ways of Being,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), 2009. Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 290–319.Google Scholar

McKenzie, K. 2014. ‘Priority and Particle Physics: Ontic Structural Realism as a Fundamentality Thesis,’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65, 353–380.Google Scholar

McTaggart, J. M. E. 1993. ‘The Unreality of Time,’ Mind 17, 1908, 457–473; reprinted in Le Poidevin, R. and McBeath, M. (eds.), The Philosophy of Time. Oxford University Press, pp. 23–34.Google Scholar

Rose, D. and Danks, D.. 2012. ‘Causation: Empirical Trends and Future Directions,’ Philosophy Compass 7.9, 643–653.Google Scholar

Merricks, T. 2001. Objects and Persons. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, K. 2005. ‘The Metaphysical Equivalence of Three and Four Dimensionalism,’ Erkenntnis 62.1, 91–117.Google Scholar

Morganti, M. 2013. Combining Science and Metaphysics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Morganti, M. 2014. ‘Metaphysical Infinitism and the Regress of Being,’ Metaphilosophy 45.2, 232–244.Google Scholar

Morganti, M. 2015. ‘Dependence, Justification and Explanation: Must Reality Be Well-Founded?’, Erkenntnis 60.3, 555–572.Google Scholar

Mulligan, K., Simons, P. and Smith, B.. ‘Truth-Makers,’ 1984. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 44.3, 287–321.Google Scholar

Nelson, M. ‘Existence,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), 2012. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/existence/Google Scholar

Ney, A. 2014. Metaphysics: An Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nolan, D. 1997. ‘Impossible Worlds: A Modest Approach,’ Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38.4, 535–572.Google Scholar

Nolan, D. 2015. ‘The A Posteriori Armchair,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93.2, 211–231.Google Scholar

O’Conaill, D. 2014. ‘Ontic Structural Realism and Concrete Objects,’ The Philosophical Quarterly 64.255, 284–300.Google Scholar

Oppenheim, P. and Putnam, H.. 1958. ‘Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,’ in Feigl, H. et al. (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science Vol. II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar

Papineau, D. 2012. Philosophical Devices: Proofs, Probabilities, Possibilities, and Sets. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Parsons, T. 1980. Nonexistent Objects. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Paul, L. A. 2004. ‘The Context of Essence,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82, 170–184.Google Scholar

Paul, L. A. 2010. ‘Temporal Experience,’ Journal of Philosophy 107.7, 333–359.Google Scholar

Paul, L. A. 2012. ‘Metaphysics as Modeling: The Handmaiden’s Tale,’ Philosophical Studies 160, 1–29.Google Scholar

Peijnenburg, J. and Atkinson, D.. 2003. ‘When Are Thought Experiments Poor Ones?’, Journal for General Philosophy of Science 34.2, 305–322.Google Scholar

Plato, . Phaedrus (Hackforth, R. trans.). 1972. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2005. Towards Non-Being: The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Priest, G. 2008. ‘The Closing of the Mind: How the Particular Quantifier Became Existentially Loaded Behind Our Backs,’ The Review of Symbolic Logic 1.1, 42–55.Google Scholar

Pust, J. 2014. ‘Intuition,’ in Zalta, E. N (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/intuition/Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1979. ‘The Meaning of “Meaning,”’ reprinted in his Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–271.Google Scholar

Putnam, H. 1990. ‘Is Water Necessarily H₂O?’, in Conant, J. (ed.), Realism with a Human Face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 54–79.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, P., Hiley, B. J. and Pättiniemi, I.. ‘Bohm’s Approach and Individuality,’ in Guay, A. and Pradeu, T. (eds.) 2015. Individuals Across the Sciences. Oxford University Press, Ch. 12.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1969. ‘Existence and Quantification,’ in his Ontological Relativity and Other Essays New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1980. ‘On What There Is,’ The Review of Metaphysics 2, 1948, 21–38; reprinted in his From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1986. Philosophy of Logic, (Second edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Raven, M. 2013. ‘Is Ground a Strict Partial Order?’, American Philosophical Quarterly 50.2, 191–199.Google Scholar

Rayo, A. 2007. ‘Ontological Commitment,’ Philosophy Compass 2/3, 2013. 428–444.Google Scholar

Rayo, A. 2013. Construction of Logical Space. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Reicher, M. ‘Nonexistent Objects,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/nonexistent-objects/Google Scholar

Ritchie, J. 2008. Understanding Naturalism. Stocksfield: Acumen.Google Scholar

Roca-Royes, S. 2011. ‘Conceivability and De Re Modal Knowledge,’ Noûs 45.1, 22–49.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2005. ‘Why Truthmakers?’, in Beebee, H. and Dodd, J. (eds.), Truthmakers: The Contemporary Debate. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 17–31.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. ‘Grounding Is Not a Strict Order,’ Journal of the American Philosophical Association (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Rosen, G. 2010. ‘Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction,’ in Hale, B. and Hoffman, A. (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford University Press, pp. 109–135.Google Scholar

Routley, R. ‘On What There Is Not,’ 1982. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43, 151–178.Google Scholar

Rowbottom, D. P. 2014. ‘Intuitions in Science: Thought Experiments as Argument Pumps,’ in Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P. (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press, pp. 119–134.Google Scholar

Rueger, A. and McGivern, P.. 2010. ‘Hierarchies and Levels of Reality,’ Synthese 176, 379–397.Google Scholar

Russell, B. 1905. ‘On Denoting,’ Mind 14, 479–493.Google Scholar

Ryckman, T. A. ‘Early Philosophical Interpretations of General Relativity,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/genrel-early/Google Scholar

Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D. (eds.). 2010. Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. 2003. ‘Is There a Fundamental Level?’, Noûs 37, 498–517.Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. 2010. ‘Monism: The Priority of the Whole,’ Philosophical Review 119, 31–76.Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. ‘On What Grounds What,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), 2009. Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 347–383.Google Scholar

Schaffer, J. 2012. ‘Grounding, Transitivity, and Contrastivity,’ in Correia, F. and Schnieder, B., Metaphysical Grounding. Cambridge University Press, pp. 122–138.Google Scholar

Schnieder, B. 2006. ‘Truth-Making Without Truth-Makers,’ Synthese 152.1, 21–46.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E. 1935. ‘Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems,’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 31, 555–563.Google Scholar

Sidelle, A. 2002. ‘On the Metaphysical Contingency of Laws of Nature,’ in Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford University Press, pp. 309–336.Google Scholar

Sidelle, A. 2009. ‘Conventionalism and the Contingency of Conventions,’ Noûs 43.2, 224–441.Google Scholar

Sidelle, A. 2010. ‘Modality and Objects,’ The Philosophical Quarterly 60.238, 109–125.Google Scholar

Sider, T. ‘Ontological Realism,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), 2009. Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 384–423.Google Scholar

Sider, T. 2011. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sider, T. 2014. ‘Hirsch’s Attack on Ontologese,’ Noûs 48.3, 565–572.Google Scholar

Simons, P. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Smith, B. and Varzi, A. C.. 1997. ‘Fiat and Bona Fide Boundaries,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60.2, 401–420.Google Scholar

Smith, B. and Mulligan, K.. 1983. ‘Framework for Formal Ontology,’ Topoi 3, 73–85.Google Scholar

Smolin, L. 2006. The Trouble with Physics. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Sorensen, R. 1992. Thought Experiments. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sosa, E. 2014. ‘Intuitions: Their Nature and Probative Value,’ in Booth, A. R. and Rowbottom, D. P. (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press, pp. 36–49.Google Scholar

Stoljar, D. ‘Physicalism,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 edn, see http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/physicalism/Google Scholar

Su, G. and Suzuki, M.. 1999. ‘Towards Bose–Einstein Condensation of Electron Pairs: Role of Schwinger Bosons,’ International Journal of Modern Physics B 13.8, 925–937.Google Scholar

Szabó, Z. G. 2003. ‘Believing in Things,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66, 584–611.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E.Tahko, T. E. 2008. ‘A New Definition of A Priori Knowledge: In Search of a Modal Basis,’ Metaphysica 9.2, 57–68.Google Scholar

2011. ‘A Priori and A Posteriori: A Bootstrapping Relationship,’ Metaphysica 12.2, 151–164.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2012. ‘Boundaries in Reality,’ Ratio 25.4, 405–424.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. (ed.). 2012. Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2012. ‘Counterfactuals and Modal Epistemology,’ Grazer Philosophische Studien 86, 93–115.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2012. ‘In Defence of Aristotelian Metaphysics,’ in Tahko, T. E. (ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–43.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2013. ‘Truth-Grounding and Transitivity,’ Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 2.4, 332–340.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2014. ‘Boring Infinite Descent,’ Metaphilosophy 45.2, 257–269.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2015. ‘Natural Kind Essentialism Revisited,’ Mind 124.495, 2015, 795–822.Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. 2015. ‘The Modal Status of Laws: In Defence of a Hybrid View,’ The Philosophical Quarterly, (online) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. ‘Empirically-Informed Modal Rationalism,’ in Fischer, R. W. and Leon, F. (eds.), Modal Epistemology After Rationalism, Synthese Library. Dordrecht: Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. and Lowe, E. J.. ‘Ontological Dependence,’ in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 edn), see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/Google Scholar

Tahko, T. E. and O’Conaill, D.. 2015. ‘Minimal Truthmakers,’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, (online) (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Tallant, J. 2013. ‘Intuitions in Physics,’ Synthese 190, 2959–2980.Google Scholar

Thomas, C. 2008. ‘Speaking of Something: Plato’s Sophist and Plato’s Beard,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38.4, 631–667.Google Scholar

Thomasson, A. 2007. Ordinary Objects. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thomasson, A. 2009. ‘Answerable and Unanswerable Questions,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, 444–471.Google Scholar

Thomasson, A. 2009. ‘The Easy Approach to Ontology,’ Axiomathes 19, 1–15.Google Scholar

Thomasson, A. 2015. Ontology Made Easy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Trogdon, K. 2009. ‘Monism and Intrinsicality,’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87, 127–148.Google Scholar

Trogdon, K. 2013. ‘Grounding: Necessary or Contingent?’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94, 465–485.Google Scholar

Trogdon, K. 2013. ‘An Introduction to Grounding,’ in Hoeltje, M., Schnieder, B., and Steinberg, A. (eds.), Varieties of Dependence. Munich: Philosophia Verlag, pp. 97–122.Google Scholar

Vaidya, A. 2010. ‘Understanding and Essence,’ Philosophia 38, 811–833.Google Scholar

Vaidya, A. 2012. ‘Intuition and Inquiry,’ Essays in Philosophy 13.1, Article 16.Google Scholar

Van Brakel, J. 2010. ‘Chemistry and Physics: No Need for Metaphysical Glue,’ Foundations of Chemistry 12.2, 123–136.Google Scholar

Van Fraassen, B. C. 2002. The Empirical Stance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Van Inwagen, P. 1998. ‘Meta-ontology,’ Erkenntnis 48, 233–250.Google Scholar

Van Inwagen, P. 2009. ‘Being, Existence, and Ontological Commitment,’ in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 472–506.Google Scholar

Varzi, A. C. 2011. ‘Boundaries, Conventions, and Realism,’ in Campbell, J. K., O’Rourke, M., and Slater, M. H. (eds.), Carving Nature at Its Joints: Natural Kinds in Metaphysics and Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 129–153.Google Scholar

Von Solodkoff, T. and Woodward, R.. 2013. ‘Noneism, Ontology, and Fundamentality,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87.3, 558–583.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Williamson, T. 2013. ‘How Deep is the Distinction Between A Priori and A Posteriori Knowledge?’ in Casullo, A. and Thurow, J. C. (eds.), The A Priori in Philosophy. Oxford University Press, pp. 291–312.Google Scholar

Wilson, J. 2014. ‘No Work for a Theory of Grounding,’ Inquiry 57.5–6, 1–45.Google Scholar

Woodward, R. 2013. ‘Towards Being,’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86.1, 183–193.Google Scholar

Yablo, S. 1993. ‘Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 1–42.Google Scholar

Yablo, S. 2009. ‘Must Existence-Questions have Answers?’, in Chalmers, D., Manley, D., and Wasserman, R. (eds.), Metametaphysics. Oxford University Press, pp. 507–525.Google Scholar

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive