Cover Image
QR Code

Non-Piecemeal Pluralism.

I argue that Schaffer fails to provide a non-question-begging argument for priority monism. Despite his suggestion to the contrary, Humean pluralists need not, and plausibly do not, endorse his tiling constraint on metaphysically basic objects. Moreover, the distinction between supervenience—of the...

Full description

Published in:Monist Vol. 104; no. 1; pp. 91 - 108
Main Author: Miller, Elizabeth
Format: Article
Published: Oxford University Press / USA Jan2021
Subjects:
Pluralism
Monism
Possibility
Tiles
Argument
Online Access:View this record in EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=148277925&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 148277925
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00269662
        MST
      jtl: Monist
      issn: 00269662
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2021
      vid: 104
      iid: 1
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        148277925
        10.1093/monist/onaa024
      ppf: 91
      ppct: 17
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 187KB
      tig:
        atl: Non-Piecemeal Pluralism.
      aug:
        au: Miller, Elizabeth
      su:
        Pluralism
        Monism
        Possibility
        Tiles
        Argument
      sug:
        subj:
          Pluralism
          Monism
          Possibility
          Tiles
          Argument
      ab: I argue that Schaffer fails to provide a non-question-begging argument for priority monism. Despite his suggestion to the contrary, Humean pluralists need not, and plausibly do not, endorse his tiling constraint on metaphysically basic objects. Moreover, the distinction between supervenience—of the sort at issue in Humean doctrine—and metaphysical necessitation—of the sort at issue in Schaffer's tiling constraint—points toward an alternative treatment of the phenomena initially inspiring Schafferian monism. There is an important possibility, one that Humeans can or should embrace, that Schaffer overlooks when drawing his monistic conclusion.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: © 2019 Hegeler Institute.
      item: Monist
      holder: Oxford University Press / USA
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2021
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N