Philosophical Thought
eISSN : 0000-0000
10.5
citescore
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years
10.5
impact factor
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
pubmed
CiteScore measures the average citations received per peer-reviewed document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a range of four years (e.g. 2018-2021) to peer-reviewed documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, data papers and book chapters) published in the same four calendar years, divided by the number of these documents in these same four years (e.g. 2018 – 21).
10.5
Embase
Biosis Preview
Volume 6, Issue 2 (2026)
3 2026, 6(2): 179-195 |
Back to browse issues page
Request Type:
History
Received: 2026/02/17 | Accepted: 2026/03/28 | Published: 2026/04/6
Received: 2026/02/17 | Accepted: 2026/03/28 | Published: 2026/04/6
How to cite this article
Moallemi M. Metaphysical Explanation as “What Represents Grounding”. 3 2026; 6 (2) :179-195
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-85697-en.html
URL: http://jpt.daneshafarand.org/article-6-85697-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Department of Moral Philosophy, Institute of Philosophy, Vali Asr Research Institute, Qom, Iran
Abstract (134 Views)
Metaphysical explanation in contemporary metaphysics faces a profound conflict between the alleged objectivity of grounding relations and the mind-dependent features of explanation. This study explores the nature of the link between grounding and explanation, aiming to resolve the "inheritance problem"—i.e., how the properties of grounding are inherited from the properties of explanation—and the resulting methodological crisis within realist accounts. To this end, two primary frameworks, "Unionism" and "Separatism," are evaluated across five distinct realist and anti-realist versions. It is argued that traditional versions of realism fail to provide a consistent account of the relationship between objective reality and epistemic access. Ultimately, "Hybrid Separatism" is introduced as the preferred solution. By distinguishing between "explanation per se" (defined as that which represents grounding) and "successful explanation" (conceived as an epistemic act), this model offers a coherent framework that preserves the metaphysical objectivity of grounding without sacrificing its essential explanatory character.
Keywords:
| | Full-Text (HTML) (3 Views)
References
1. Dasgupta S (2014). Metaphysical rationalism. Noûs. 50(2):379-418. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/nous.12082]
2. Dasgupta S (2017). Constitutive explanation. Philosophical Issues. 27(1):74-97. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/phis.12102]
3. Fine K (2012). Guide to ground. In: Correia F, Schnieder B, editors. Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 37-80. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139149136.002]
4. Kovacs DM (2021). An explanatory idealist theory of grounding. Noûs. 56(3):530-553. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/nous.12368]
5. Maudlin T (2007). The metaphysics within physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218219.001.0001]
6. Maurin AS (2019). Grounding and metaphysical explanation: It's complicated. Philosophical Studies. 176(6):1573-1594. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-018-1080-0]
7. Raven M (2015). Ground. Philosophy Compass. 10(5):322-333. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/phc3.12220]
8. Rosen G (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In: Hale B, Hoffmann A, editors. Modality: Metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 109-136. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199565818.003.0007]
9. Schaffer J (2009). On what grounds what. In: Chalmers DJ, Manley D, Wasserman R, editors. Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 347-383. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/oso/9780199546046.003.0012]
10. Schaffer J (2016). Grounding in the image of causation. Philosophical Studies. 173(1):49-100. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-014-0438-1]
11. Schaffer J (2017). Laws for metaphysical explanation. Philosophical Issues. 27:302-321. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/phis.12111]
12. Skiles A, Trogdon K (2021). Should explanation be a guide to ground?. Philosophical Studies. 178:4083-4098. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11098-021-01637-w]
13. Thompson N (2016). Grounding and metaphysical explanation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 116(3):395-402. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/arisoc/aow012]
14. Thompson N (2023). How to be an antirealist about metaphysical explanation. Ratio. 36(4):260-273. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/rati.12367]
15. Trogdon K (2013). An introduction to grounding. In: Schnieder B, Hoeltje M, Steinberg A, editors. Varieties of dependence: Ontological dependence, grounding, supervenience, response-dependence. Munich: Philosophia Verlag. p. 97-122. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/j.ctv2nrzhj9.6]
16. Van Fraassen B (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/0198244274.001.0001]