Skip to main content

Material re-enchantment of nature

Consider a mountain: the thinking of
this mountain entails (a) that there is already a mountain to be thought, whatever its
nature; and (b) that the causes of the existence of the mountain must also be involved
in the thinking of the mountain.

Hamilton Grant, Does Nature Stay What-it-is?: Dynamics and the Antecendence Criterion, p. 82

Interesting spelling out and proposed solution to the problem of ground in (one of) Hamilton Grant's contribution to The Speculative Turn. The problem is that ground seems to point both at logical connections (or, broadly, moves within the space of reasons) and material connections (something typically like causes and effects). But, as Kit Fine says (in his Some puzzles of ground, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (1):97-118, 2010), ground is a notion that seems logically faulty but is invaluable enough to be nevertheless embraced and not discarded. The Fichtean solution, as Hamilton Grant presents, is to locate ground in action and action solely within the space of reasons. Such solutions (he mentions few others that would amount to the same limitation of ground to reason) miss the bite of the principle of sufficient reason: it has to rule over natural contingencies otherwise it leaves everything beyond reason out of its scope. Grant's own solution is to claim that because nature is itself potentia, it is the sufficient reason for all contingencies. Physical particulars are always ungrounded and yet all of them find an antecedent in the (sort of) pool of possibilities which is matter (what constitutes nature).

The solution points at a continuity between grounding relations in the space of reasons (thinking, making inferences, making judgements) on the one hand and causes in nature in the other. Hence, as in Davidson's own solution to us being possibly wrong in all of our particular beliefs about the world, he holds that a thought of the mountain is caused by the mountain. In Davidson, sceptical objections, such as the possibility of us being brains in a vat or Davidson's own swampman example (he imagines a swamp replica of himself having his usual thoughts after his death and asks whether these thoughts were caused by the things they are about), arise. But Grant has a way to dismiss them. My thinking of the mountain is caused by the mountain, but could have been caused by anything else - particular events are accordingly ungrounded. The ground for them is nature. But then again, this is the nature of contingencies in the world and has nothing specifically to do with the border between the realm of nature and the space of reasons. Things always could have gone differently in nature, as it is potentia - a pool of uncountable possibilities. The border between the realm of nature and the space of reasons is subject to contingencies in the same way as a geological movement could have given rise to different surfaces.

His solutions illuminates other aspects of the border between the realm of law and space of reasons and some other varieties of sceptical anxiety. McDowell's own (somehow Fichetean) way of conceiving the space of reasons as something that is not spinning frictionless in the void was to make it unbounded. That amounts to say that it had no borders with the realm of law but rather encompassed it. Nature becomes rational, in his case, thoroughly subject to concepts - made of thinkables. It is his partial re-enchantment of nature as a response to the idea that the realm of nature is no more than a realm of laws. This idea is hostage to the notion that nature is determinate, actual and composed of necessary (universal) regularities. McDowell's re-enchantment has that nature is fully thinkable. Grant's re-enchantment has that thinking itself is natural - doubting is brought about by contingency, which is itself natural. Matter, as potentia, holds together the realm of nature - itself active, vibrant, animated and not lawlike - and the space of reasons.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Giving Birth

This is a month of giving birth: 1. On the first day of the month (my birthday) I sent out my book BUG (Being Up for Grabs) to publisher. A birth-giving moment. 2. On the forth, we started the Journal, called Journal of Questions. It is a Jabèsian and Jarryian endeavor that intends to reflect in many languages about the gaps between thought and translation. It will be available soon. 3. On the 10th, day before yesterday, offspring Devrim A. B. was born. Her name means revolution in Turkish and is a roughly common name. She's very attentive and concentrated - especially on her own fingers that she learned to molest in her youth during her womb months. She was gestated together with BUG. Hope the world enjoys.

My responses to (some) talks in the Book Symposium

Indexicalism is out: l https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-indexicalism.html   The book symposium took place two weeks ago with talks by Sofya Gevorkyan/Carlos Segovia, Paul Livingston, Gerson Brea, Steven Shaviro, Chris RayAlexander, Janina Moninska, Germán Prosperi, Gabriela Lafetá, Andrea Vidal, Elzahrã Osman, Graham Harman, Charles Johns, Jon Cogburn, Otavio Maciel, Aha Else, JP Caron, Michel Weber and John Bova. My very preliminary response to some of their talks about the book follows. (Texts will appear in a special issue of Cosmos & History soon). RESPONSES : ON SAYING PARADOXICAL THINGS Hilan Bensusan First of all, I want to thank everyone for their contributions. You all created a network of discussions that made the book worth publishing. Thanks. Response to Shaviro: To engage in a general account of how things are is to risk paradox. Totality, with its different figures including the impersonal one that enables a symmetrical view from nowhere

Hunky, Gunky and Junky - all Funky Metaphysics

Been reading Bohn's recent papers on the possibility of junky worlds (and therefore of hunky worlds as hunky worlds are those that are gunky and junky - quite funky, as I said in the other post). He cites Whitehead (process philosophy tends to go hunky) but also Leibniz in his company - he wouldn't take up gunk as he believed in monads but would accept junky worlds (where everything that exists is a part of something). Bohn quotes Leibniz in On Nature Itself «For, although there are atoms of substance, namely monads, which lack parts, there are no atoms of bulk, that is, atoms of the least possible extension, nor are there any ultimate elements, since a continuum cannot be composed out of points. In just the same way, there is nothing greatest in bulk nor infinite in extension, even if there is always something bigger than anything else, though there is a being greatest in the intensity of its perfection, that is, a being infinite in power.» And New Essays: ... for there is ne