Jonathan Schaffer: The Asymmetry of Existence

Reading for this Meeting: LINK

Join our newsletter: By simply adding your email to our form, you'll be subscribed to P&G's weekly philosophy reading materials: LINK

Our Discord Group: LINK

WARNING:
We'll have a review of the paper so far at the beginning of the meeting. New to the paper? It's ok. I got you. A little warning: It is full of philosophical jargon, and crazy technical. If you are into that sort of thing, be my guest. After the review, we will start reading from page 30 onward...

ABOUT:

We’ll dissect Schaffer’s “Atomless Gunk” argument: a world could be endlessly divisible with no fundamental simples. If that’s possible, pluralism (parts-first metaphysics) struggles to explain what’s basic—while priority monism shrugs and says the whole cosmos is the one fundamental thing. No woo, just clean metaphysics.

What we’ll cover (agenda)

1. Gunk defined — matter with parts all the way down; no atoms, ever.
2. Why gunk is possible — conceptual coherence + mereology + scientific live options.
3. Pluralist escape routes — infinitism, mid-level basics, disjunctivism (and why they’re ugly).
4. Monist payoff — the asymmetry of existence: wholes are guaranteed; simples aren’t.
5. Pushback & counterpush — is “the cosmos” cheating? what about structure without simples?
6. Key questions

• If there are no simples, what grounds reality on a parts-first view?
• Is foundationalism (no infinite dependence) negotiable—or non-negotiable?
• Does declaring the cosmos fundamental actually explain anything, or just move the goalpost?
• Are mid-sized “basics” principled, or metaphysical duct tape?
• Should metaphysics aim for modal robustness (work in atomistic and gunky worlds)?