Epstein on Anchors and grounds

10Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The distinction between anchors and grounds is one of the most innovative contributions of The Ant Trap. In this commentary I will argue that the distinction suffers from an ambiguity between tokens and types. This leads Epstein to endorse pluralism about anchors and grounds, a position that is not justified in the book and to which there are plausible alternatives.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Guala, F. (2016). Epstein on Anchors and grounds. Journal of Social Ontology, 2(1), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2016-0003

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free