Simplicity and Complexity in Metaphysics

Aleksandr Kulieshov

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of simple and complex objects in metaphysical research. It is stated that the ultimate simplification of reality theoretical models follows from the nature of metaphysical knowledge. The modern metaphysical conceptions of fundamental simplicity and fundamental complexity of existing objects are discussed. They are the conceptions of full and distributional monism, mereological nihilism, and the traditional binary or binary-based models of the foundations of reality, ascending to Aristotle. The paper shows that these conceptions and ideas do not simplify reality as much as possible. The problematic and ambiguous nature of the conceptions considered is that all complicating factors are not excluded in them. This leads to a situation where further grounding of the entities that are accepted as the simplest ones is required. The state of the full simplification in metaphysics is defined. It is argued that ultimate simplification requires the exclusion of qualitative multiplicity and quantitative definiteness, the exclusion of the distinction between substance and its qualities, between the entity and the law, the relation or condition which ground it. The entity identified in the process of ultimate simplification must be quantitatively indefinite, identical to its quality and substratum, indistinguishable from the law, the condition or the relationship of its grounding. Such an entity can be the starting point for the construction of a metaphysical model of the world as a consistent complication of entities.



Keywords


metaphysics; entity; simplicity; complexity; fundamental reality; grounding

Full Text:

PDF


References


1. Bradley, D. (2017). Philosophers should prefer simpler theories. Philosophical Studies.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

2. Cowling, S. (2013). Ideological parsimony. Synthese, 190(17), 3889–3908.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

3. Elgin, S. Z. (n. d.). The Simplicity of Metaphysical Structures (Doctoral thesis). San Diego: University of California.

4. Parsons, T. (1979). The Methodology of Nonexistence. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(11), 649.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

5. Willard, M. B. (2013). Against simplicity. Philosophical Studies, 167(1), 165–181.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

6. Dilworth, C. (2012). Simplicity: A Meta-Metaphysics. Lanham: Lexington Books.

[Google Scholar]

7. Kriegel, U. (2017). Metaphysics and Conceptual Analysis: Experimental Philosophy's Place under the Sun. In D. Rose (Еd.), Experimental Metaphysics (pp. 7–46). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

[Google Scholar]

8. Dowell, J. L. (2007). Serious metaphysics and the vindication of reductions. Philosophical Studies, 139(1), 91–110.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

9. Cornell, D. M. (2016). Taking monism seriously. Philosophical Studies, 173(9), 2397–2415.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

10. Paul, L. A. (2017). A One Category Ontology. Being, Freedom, and Method, 32–61.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

11. Sider, T. (2013). Against Parthood. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 8, 236–293.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

12. Inwagen, P. V. (1990). Material Beings. New York: Cornell University Press.

[Google Scholar]

13. Miller, K. L. (2014). Defending Substantivism about Disputes in the Metaphysics of Composition. Journal of Philosophy, 111(9), 529–556.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

14. Schneider, L. (2017). Minimal Aristotelian Ontology. Cosmos + Taxis, 4 (4), 27–37.

[Google Scholar]

15. Brenner, A. (2016). Simplicity as a criterion of theory choice in metaphysics. Philosophical Studies, 174(11), 2687–2707.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

16. Markosian, N. (1998). Brutal Composition. Philosophical Studies, 92(3), 211–249.

[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018 Aleksandr Kulieshov

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.