Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T19:57:23.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2023

Tuomas E. Tahko
Tuomas E. Tahko
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrow, J. D. 2001. ‘Cosmology, Life, and the Anthropic Principle,’ Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 950, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Tuomas E. Tahko, University of Helsinki
  • Book: An Introduction to Metametaphysics
  • Online publication: 18 March 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139924832.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Tuomas E. Tahko, University of Helsinki
  • Book: An Introduction to Metametaphysics
  • Online publication: 18 March 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139924832.012
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Tuomas E. Tahko, University of Helsinki
  • Book: An Introduction to Metametaphysics
  • Online publication: 18 March 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139924832.012
Available formats
×