This paper presents a new cosmological argument based on considerations about grounding. I argue that, by assuming three plausible principles about grounding, we can construct a cosmological argument for the existence of a unique ungrounded being that ultimately grounds everything else. At the end of the paper I consider two possible objections, and offer my replies to them.

We construct a causal-modeling semantics for both indicative and counterfactual conditionals. As regards counterfactuals, we adopt the orthodox view that a counterfactual conditional is true in a causal model M just in case its consequent is true in the submodel M∗, generated by intervening in M, in which its antecedent is true. We supplement the orthodox semantics by introducing a new manipulation called extrapolation. We argue that an indicative conditional is true in a causal model M just in case its (...) con- sequent is true in certain submodels M∗, generated by extrapolating M, in which its antecedent is true. We show that the proposed semantics can account for some important minimal pairs nicely and naturally. We also prove a theorem showing under what conditions intervention and extrapolation will yield the same result, and thus explain how counterfactual and indicative conditionals would behave in a causal-modeling semantics. (shrink)

Many metaphysical controversies can be understood as debates over whether some alleged entities are metaphysically possible. No doubt, with regard to these matters, we may have opinions or theories, commonsensical or sophisticated. But do we have knowledge of them? Can we really know that something is metaphysically possible, and if so, how? Several different answers have been offered in the literature, intending to illustrate how we may have knowledge of metaphysical modality. In this paper, I concentrate on a proposal by (...) Timothy Williamson. On this account, our alleged knowledge of metaphysical modality is justified by and grounded in our capacity to handle ordinary mundane counterfactual conditionals. However, I argue that Williamson’s account fails, mainly because the modality involved in ordinary mundane counterfactuals is causal, and thus our capacity to handle them still falls short of giving us any knowledge of metaphysical modality. In the end of the paper, I also provide my own answer to the question. My answer is a sceptical one: we do not really have knowledge of metaphysical modality. But such ignorance is harmless, or so I argue. (shrink)

Motivated by avoiding a difficulty confronting the usual formulations of identity criteria, Fine has proposed and developed a generic account of grounding. In this paper, I examine two versions of the account. I argue that both proposals fail, as it is difficult to see how the strategy of ‘going generic’ can really solve the problem. I conclude that the idea of generic grounding is mysterious and unmotivated.

Consider the following argument, where ‘\’ abbreviates ‘the proposition that p’: It is possible that Socrates does not exist.Necessarily, if Socrates does not exist, then \ is true.Necessarily, if \ is true, then \ exists.Necessarily, if \ exists, then Socrates exists.Therefore, it is possible that Socrates exists and does not exist. How can one respond to this argument? Fine thinks that the argument involves an equivocation concerning the notion of truth for propositions: if we stand inside a possible world to (...) evaluate the truth, in this ‘inner’ sense holds but fails; but if we stand outside, in this ‘outer’ sense holds but fails. In this paper we argue that such an equivocation response is obscure, ad hoc, and unmotivated. (shrink)

This volume brings together a group of logic-minded philosophers and philosophically oriented logicians to address a diversity of topics on the structural analysis of non-classical logics. It mainly focuses on the construction of different types of models for various non-classical logics of current interest, including modal logics, epistemic logics, dynamic logics, and observational predicate logic. The book presents a wide range of applications of two well-known approaches in current research: structural modeling of certain philosophical issues in the framework of non-classic (...) logics, such as admissible models for modal logic, structural models for modal epistemology and for counterfactuals, and epistemological models for common knowledge and for public announcements; conceptual analysis of logical properties of, and formal semantics for, non-classical logics, such as sub-formula property, truthmaking, epistemic modality, behavioral strategies, speech acts and assertions. The structural analysis provided in this volume will appeal not only to graduate students and experts in non-classic logics, but also to readers from a wide range of disciplines, including computer science, cognitive science, linguistics, game theory and theory of action, to mention a few. (shrink)