Arbitrariness and the long road to permissivism.

Radically permissive ontologies like mereological universalism and material plenitude are typically motivated by concerns about arbitrariness or anthropocentrism: it would be objectionably arbitrary, the thought goes, to countenance only those objects that we ordinarily take there to be. Despite the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Nous (0029-4624) Vol. 56; no. 3; pp. 619 - 639
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Sep2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=158677743&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 158677743
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00294624
        D97
      jtl: Nous (0029-4624)
      issn: 00294624
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Sep2022
      vid: 56
      iid: 3
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        158677743
        10.1111/nous.12376
      ppf: 619
      ppct: 20
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 225KB
      tig:
        atl: Arbitrariness and the long road to permissivism.
      aug:
      su:
        Anthropocentrism
        Metaphysics
        Motivation (Psychology)
        Roads
        Argument
        Environmental ethics
      sug:
        subj:
          Anthropocentrism
          Metaphysics
          Motivation (Psychology)
          Roads
          Argument
          Environmental ethics
      ab: Radically permissive ontologies like mereological universalism and material plenitude are typically motivated by concerns about arbitrariness or anthropocentrism: it would be objectionably arbitrary, the thought goes, to countenance only those objects that we ordinarily take there to be. Despite the prevalence of this idea, it isn't at all clear what it is for a theory to be "objectionably arbitrary", or what follows from a commitment to avoiding arbitrariness in metaphysics. This paper aims to clarify both questions, and examines whether arguments from arbitrariness really are the proper foundations for one or both varieties of ontological permissivism. I argue that these considerations (even when made more precise) are far less successful at motivating radical forms of permissivism than we often take them to be. To do better, permissivists must either supply a much more developed metaphysics of material objects, or a controversial (but tempting) conception of what we're doing when we do metaphysics.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Nous (0029-4624) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Nous (0029-4624)
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2022
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N