{"title":"Grounding, Internality, and Actuality","authors":"Chaoan He","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70120","url":null,"abstract":"According to the principle of grounding Internality, if <i>X</i> fully grounds <i>Y</i>, then necessarily, if <i>X</i> and <i>Y</i> obtain, then <i>X</i> fully grounds <i>Y</i>. Though intuitively appealing and widely assumed, the principle is under attack from various concerns. The common arguments against Internality are usually accommodatable by the Completer Strategy. A more recent and improved variety of arguments, involving trumping grounding, squarely escape the Completer Strategy. We will first critically examine cases of trumping grounding and argue that they do not really give rise to serious troubles for Internality. Then, appealing to the distinction between token facts and type facts, we present a novel argument against Internality by invoking a hitherto unexplored grounding relation holding between ordinary facts like [Billy killed Suzy] and what we will call @-facts like [Billy <i>actually</i> killed Suzy]. Substantial defenses for our new case will be provided.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147755105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Softening the Border: A Capacities Approach to the Perception–Cognition Distinction","authors":"Jacob Beck, Casey O'Callaghan","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70102","url":null,"abstract":"Approaches to the perception–cognition distinction tend toward two extremes. Many embrace a hard border, treating perception and cognition as mutually exclusive, non‐overlapping categories. By contrast, eliminativism denies that any principled, theoretically useful distinction exists between perception and cognition. This article offers a third way, describing a principled but soft border between perception and cognition. This non‐exclusive approach differentiates perception from cognition while allowing that they overlap. Because it rests on the notion of a psychological capacity, we call it <jats:italic>the capacities approach</jats:italic> . Perception and cognition are distinct psychological faculties, each of which comprises a collection of psychological capacities. What unifies and differentiates each such collection is the distinctive way in which its capacities are exercised. Perceptual capacities are those that can be exercised in a stimulus‐dependent manner, whereas cognitive capacities are those that can be exercised in a stimulus‐independent manner. Because some capacities, including those associated with approximate number, language, and imagery, can be exercised in each such manner, some capacities belong to both perception and cognition. We argue that the capacities approach offers an illuminating taxonomy and handles both the empirical facts and the tricky cases better than its rivals.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147664012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Suárez on the Contingency of Causal Origin","authors":"Han Thomas Adriaenssen","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70110","url":null,"abstract":"Do individuals have their actual causal origins necessarily? Or could one and the same individual also have had a causal origin other than its actual one? Late medieval and early modern Aristotelians confront this question in the course of their discussions of the metaphysics of causation. In this paper, I discuss and evaluate Francisco Suárez's case for the view that causal origin is contingent, in the sense that the same individual that in fact proceeds from one cause could also have proceeded from some other cause of the same kind instead. I argue that his defense of this claim against his opponents is stronger, and philosophically more interesting, than appears at first. In particular, I argue that Suárez challenges the ontology of causal action presupposed by his opponents by invoking shared assumptions about truth and what we would now call truthmaking.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147630708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the Ontology of Composites in Abhidharma Buddhism","authors":"Monima Chadha, Shaun Nichols","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70109","url":null,"abstract":"Abhidharma Buddhism maintains that the only ultimately real ( <jats:italic>paramārtha</jats:italic> ) entities in the universe are <jats:italic>dharmas</jats:italic> , which are simples. What then is the ontological status of composites on this theory? One possibility is that Abhidharma Buddhists deny the reality of composites. We argue, however, that Abhidharma Buddhists affirm the reality of some composites, based on the causal efficacy of the composites. This depends on distinguishing between two notions of reality—ultimate reality ( <jats:italic>paramārtha</jats:italic> ) and substantial reality ( <jats:italic>dravyasat</jats:italic> ). If an entity is causally efficacious, it counts as substantially real. Abhidharma Buddhists affirm the substantial reality of material composites (like the eye); in this case, the causal powers of the composite are of the same type of the causal powers of the constituent dharmas. Abhidharma Buddhists also affirm the substantial reality of mental composites (like sensory episodes), which are composed of diverse kinds of dharmas. We argue that in the latter case Abhidharma Buddhists are committed to some form of emergentism.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"277 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147619704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Normative Profile of Knowledge by Acquaintance","authors":"Emad H. Atiq","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70108","url":null,"abstract":"Many philosophers have found it plausible that sense experience affords a species of nonpropositional awareness and knowledge, what Russell termed “knowledge by acquaintance.” At the same time, a prominent strand in epistemology maintains that knowledge has a distinctive normative profile: it is embedded in justificatory relations, serves as a standard of success for underlying attitudes, grounds regulative norms, and qualifies as a cognitive achievement. Yet it remains unclear how a nonpropositional state of acquaintance, formed without evidential basis and beyond rational control, could fit within this normative structure. I trace the connections between different formulations of what I call “the normativity objection” to Russell's view and offer a unified response. The objection, I argue, rests on an overly passive conception of acquaintance. Once acquaintance is seen as partly constituted by attention—a subject-level, reasons-responsive activity—it can satisfy knowledge's normative role by serving as the success condition of a norm-governed performance. This not only strengthens the Russellian program but also reveals a striking convergence between the structure of consciousness and the structure of epistemic normativity.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147586307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"From Computational Indeterminacy to the Causal Relevance of Mental Content","authors":"Jens Harbecke, Oron Shagrir","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70105","url":null,"abstract":"A central claim in contemporary cognitive science is that the neural mechanisms that bring about cognitive capacities and behavior are computations. It is also widely assumed that computations are not sensitive to the content, or the semantic properties of representations. From this insensitivity premise, some infer that mental content is causally irrelevant—a position we term the <jats:italic>sensitivity argument</jats:italic> against the causal relevance of content. This conclusion, however, sits uneasily with everyday situations in which the contents of our representations appear indispensable to our actions. In this paper, we reject the view that such experiences are illusory and instead identify a flaw in the inference from insensitivity to content to its causal irrelevance. Drawing on the phenomenon of <jats:italic>computational indeterminacy</jats:italic> —the fact that a single physical state can realize multiple formalisms—we argue that content can be causally relevant even when computation itself is content‐insensitive. While remaining neutral on the precise link between higher level and physical causation, we show that computational indeterminacy offers a principled route to restoring the causal relevance of mental content.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"207 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147495352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Biological Individuality and Fallacies of Composition","authors":"Alexander Geddes","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70100","url":null,"abstract":"Within the philosophy of biology, there is widespread acceptance of pluralism about biological individuality, according to which there are (at least) two theoretically important but distinct properties with a claim to the label “biological individuality”: <i>evolutionary individuality</i> and <i>physiological individuality</i>. Many who accept this also commit themselves—sometimes explicitly, often implicitly—to the further, surprising claim that the evolutionary individual and the physiological individual corresponding to a seemingly singular multicellular organism, such as a human being, are in fact distinct. I raise some problems for this distinctness claim before developing a way of holding onto pluralism while rejecting this supposed consequence of it. I do so by uncovering some natural but hidden assumptions concerning the connections between certain evolutionarily significant properties of multicellular organisms and certain properties of their parts—assumptions that, once made explicit, can be seen to amount to fallacies of composition. I show that, by rejecting these assumptions, philosophers of biology can hold on to the appealing idea that familiar multicellular organisms are at once both evolutionary and physiological individuals.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147447413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Shared Life","authors":"James Laing","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70106","url":null,"abstract":"We are social animals that seek to live a life that is, in some sense, shared with others. But what exactly do we want in wanting to live a shared life? First, I seek to show that this question is not as straightforward as it might initially appear. Second, I present an answer to this question, which makes reference to the thought that we have a need for an irreducibly relational form of emotional experience, which I call “interpersonal connection.” Third, and finally, I draw upon this answer to identify the harm implicated in the experience of loneliness.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147447414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Are Rights Self-Other Symmetric?","authors":"Collis Tahzib","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70104","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70104","url":null,"abstract":"Recently, there have been several defenses of self-other symmetry. On this view, we have the same rights against ourselves as we have against others. In this paper, I challenge this view by arguing that even if some rights (such as rights against <i>serious</i> harm) are symmetric, rights against <i>minor</i> harm are not plausibly symmetric. To this end, I present four pairs of cases involving accidental, negligent, drunken and intrinsically non-consentable minor harm in which self-other symmetry's implications are highly counterintuitive. Next I provide theoretical support for these intuitions by explaining how denying them threatens to eradicate the category of prudence. I then consider and reject two responses available to defenders of self-other symmetry: namely, that rights are self-other symmetric in content but not stringency, and that self-other symmetry's intuitive and theoretical costs are outweighed by the benefits of simplicity and parsimony. I conclude by proposing two novel and weakened self-other symmetry theses that are immune to the foregoing counterexamples and are worthy of further investigation.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147351211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Contextual Accuracy Dominance Argument for Probabilism","authors":"Mikayla Kelley","doi":"10.1111/phpr.70098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.70098","url":null,"abstract":"A central motivation for Probabilism—the principle of rationality that requires one to have credences that satisfy the axioms of probability—is the accuracy dominance argument: one should not have accuracy dominated credences, and one avoids accuracy dominance just in case one satisfies Probabilism. Until recently, the accuracy dominance argument for Probabilism has been restricted to finite credal states. One reason for this is that there are several impossibility results that apply when defining the accuracy of infinite credal states. In this paper, I offer a fully general accuracy dominance argument for Probabilism that allows for the possibility that not all sets of credences can be measured for accuracy. The normative core of the argument is the principle that one should not have credences that are accuracy dominated in some “scorable” epistemic context by alternative credences that do not have this defect. Beyond this novel rationality principle, the argument contributes two important theoretical tools to accuracy-first epistemology: the idea of an epistemic context being scorable and a general contextualizing strategy for extending the arguments of accuracy-first epistemology to the infinite setting.","PeriodicalId":48136,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147319524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}