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.
Author supplied keywords
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? Sign in
Sign up for free