Abstract
Some general remarks are given about methods of argument in metaphysics. The importance of indispensability arguments, and the importance of the fact that such arguments don’t succeed, is reiterated. The important point is that removing such arguments reveals heretofore hidden logical space. The very position of ontological projectivism can’t be seen unless indispensability arguments are undercut first. The fact that if certain aspects of metaphysics (such as object boundaries) are projected, then certain conceptual puzzles will arise, is also stressed. This is not itself directly an argument for object projectivism; instead, it is a valuable side-effect of arguments that don’t directly turn on conceptual puzzles. Work left for the future is described.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
