Bradley's Regress and Ungrounded Dependence Chains: A Reply to Cameron

Dialectica 63 (3):333-341 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A version of Bradley's regress can be endorsed in an effort to address the problem of the unity of states of affairs or facts, thereby arriving at a doctrine that I have called fact infinitism. A consequence of it is the denial of the thesis, WF, that all chains of ontological dependence are well‐founded or grounded. Cameron has recently rejected fact infinitism by arguing that WF, albeit not necessarily true, is however contingently true. Here fact infinitism is supported by showing that Cameron's argument for the contingent truth of WF is unsuccessful.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

States of affairs: Bradley vs. Meinong.Francesco Orilia - 2006 - In Venanzio Raspa (ed.), Meinongian issues in contemporary Italian philosophy. Lancaster, LA: Ontos. pp. 213--238.
On the regress argument for infinitism.John Turri - 2009 - Synthese 166 (1):157 - 163.
The trouble with infinitism.Andrew D. Cling - 2004 - Synthese 138 (1):101 - 123.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-22

Downloads
25 (#618,847)

6 months
7 (#418,426)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Ontological dependence.Fabrice Correia - 2008 - Philosophy Compass 3 (5):1013-1032.
Ontological Dependency.E. J. Lowe - 1994 - Philosophical Papers 23 (1):31-48.
What’s Wrong With Infinite Regresses?Daniel Nolan - 2001 - Metaphilosophy 32 (5):523-538.

View all 13 references / Add more references