On the Reduction of Grounding to Essence

In a recent article, Fabrice Correia explores the project of reducing the notion of grounding to that of essence. He then goes on to provide several candidate definitions and test each of them against a number of objections. His final take on the situation is, roughly, that two of the definitions can handle all of the considered objections. The aim of this paper is to re-evaluate Correia's conclusions in the light of two sources of insights: Firstly, I will argue that one of the objections treated by Correia has been somewhat underestimated, and that it still constitutes a threat against definitions of grounding in terms of essence. Secondly, there are at least two further objections that should be considered by the advocate of such definitions. As I will show, one of them can be neutralized; but the other one is more serious and suggests a clear dialectical edge to an operationalist definition

Essence et fondation

L’orthodoxie dans la littérature florissante au sujet de la fondation (grounding) suggère que cette notion ne peut être analysée ou exprimée en terme d’aucune autre. Par ailleurs, le primitivisme à propos de l’essence est considéré comme très plausible depuis l’article influent de Kit Fine à ce sujet. Cela contraint les philosophes qui emploient ces deux notions à accepter une position doublement primitiviste. Mon objectif principal est de proposer une définition de la fondation en terme d’essence. Je commencerai par présenter la conception positive en question, puis je montrerai la façon dont elle répond à un certain nombre d’objections à son encontre. L’apport d’une telle approche, si elle est couronnée de succès, devrait être évident : les philosophes qui acceptent la fondation comme notion primitive n’auront plus à le faire, pour autant qu’ils emploient déjà la notion d’essence. Pour ceux qui refusaient de parler de fondation sous prétexte que la notion était indéfinissable, la présence d’une définition éliminera ipso facto leur raison d’être sceptique.Orthodoxy in the flourishing literature about grounding has it that the notion cannot be analysed with or expressed in terms of any other notion. Similarly, a form of primitivism is taken to be quite plausible about the notion of essence ever since Kit Fine’s seminal article on the topic. This forces philosophers (Kit Fine, inter alia) that use the two notions into a doubly primitivist position. My main aim here is to put forward a definition of grounding in terms of essence. I will first present the positive account and then show how it can handle a variety of objections. The upshot of such an approach if successful should be obvious : the philosophers that accept grounding as a primitive notion in their theorizing need not do so anymore, at least provided that they also helped themselves to a notion of essence (or objectual definition). For those who were reluctant to use grounding talk because it was allegedly undefinable my defining grounding in terms of essence eliminates ipso facto their reason for being skeptic

Grounding in the philosophy of science

The general aim is to present and clarify the notion of grounding, and promote its application to different debates in the philosophy of science. Along the way, I digress about a few specific questions regarding the metaphysics of grounding. As a result, my title ‘Grounding in the Philosophy of Science’ is deceiving in at least two ways. First, it suggests a level of argumentative unity that is typical of monographs, when the present dissertation lumps together a series of almost independent arguments. Secondly, it implies a restriction of field to the philosophy of science, when much of the content extends far beyond these confines