Meysam Zandi Goharrizi; Davood Hoseini
Abstract
Grounding depicts the layered structure of the facts. If we let grounding facts be in the theory, what is their status in the hierarchy? Based on the Purity Principle, grounding facts could not be fundamental because they contain non-fundamental parts. They must inevitably be grounded in other facts. ...
Read More
Grounding depicts the layered structure of the facts. If we let grounding facts be in the theory, what is their status in the hierarchy? Based on the Purity Principle, grounding facts could not be fundamental because they contain non-fundamental parts. They must inevitably be grounded in other facts. Non-fundamentality of grounding facts, with some other assumptions, produces a chain of grounding facts that could threaten the well-foundedness of grounding. The well-foundedness of Grounding is desirable because it guarantees foundationalism; a thesis that posits the existence of a fundamental layer of facts. In this essay, we will introduce common theories about grounding ground and also describe different approaches to make grounding well-founded. These theories contain a reductionist theory called Grounding Essentialism and two theories that believe grounding facts are grounded in something in the theory. These two accounts are called Straight Forward Account and Zero Grounding Account. Here we will show that Straight Forward Account and Zero Grounding Account are consistent with one approach to well-foundedness and therefore, they are foundationalist. On the other hand, we will show that Grounding Essentialism cannot accommodate well-foundedness in its various forms. We present a qualified version of Grounding Essentialism that could support well-foundedness. We will argue that even though this trial is somehow successful, some problems still stay on.
