Volume 66, Issue 3

The Idea of a unified foundation of all reality has long been core to many attempts at a fundamental ontology, as well as many arguments for the divine. In medieval India a cluster of arguments for metaphysical inheritance, causal entanglement, the impossibility of fundamental relations and more, were advanced together to show there must be an ultimate and unified ground. But foundationalism has been under attack in both recent metaphysics, and Buddhist philosophy. This article unpacks Vedānta’s defense of divine foundationalism against Madhyamaka Buddhism’s metaphysical nihilism. Firstly, we look at how inheritance arguments for ultimate ground aimed to circumvent the possibility of infinite regress. Secondly, we assess three arguments that this ground is a unified modal anchor, with entangled causal power, providing a connective medium for all phenomena. We address some caveats and limitations, but go on to argue that if they are right, they circumvent the Buddhists’ ‘dualistic’ assumption that if the empirical world is mere imagined convention, it needs no explanation. Monists and nihilists are allies against excessively realist ontologies, but these arguments make a compelling case for some unified fundamental nature from which, as the Upaniṣads put it, all things emerge like sparks from a fire.

In “Against Infinite Nothingness: Arguments for Foundationalism in Indian Philosophy” Jessica Frazier brings Vedantic arguments to bear against contemporary objections to foundationalism : the view that there must exist a single self-subsistent ground upon which the existence of all else stands. She argues in particular that these arguments permit us to infer the existence of a “modal anchor” operative in nature that deserves to be regarded as fundamental, even in the absence of a “fundamental level” to nature. This paper argues that Frazier has not sufficiently justified the assertion that such modal anchors have a right to be regarded as metaphysically fundamental, even in the less demanding sense that she seemingly associates with that term. This does not mean that there is any incoherence in what Frazier is trying to argue, however. The argument given here should thus be seen as an invitation to more fully spell out the notion of fundamentality that Frazier regards as most appropriate to these ancient Vedantic texts.

If there is something non-reducible to anything else, self-existent, unsusceptible to further explanation, then in what sense might it be fundamental , and in what sense might it be unified ? In my response to Kerry McKenzie and Peter Adamson, I try to clarify the idea of “foundation” that these arguments claim to show, by first contrasting two conceptions of fundamentality (a concrete complete bottom level from which the world is built up – the kind people often have in mind, and an ultimate modal determination that explains things), and then discussing McKenzie’s main worry that what is modally irreducible does not necessarily qualify as fundamental, and Adamson’s worry that the bottom-level entities need not be numerically single.

This paper examines the work of one of Russia’s greatest philosophers, Vladimir Solovyov (1853–1900), from the perspective of natural theology and attempts to distil the original natural theological arguments which we find in his work. Solovyov’s arguments are rarely presented in clarity or with a detailed critical analysis. The current paper thus hopes to offer some amendment to this unfortunate deficiency in the secondary literature. It will become evident that Solovyov’s relation to natural theology contained two distinct layers. There is, on the one hand, the external polemical and publicist layer of discourse, where Solovyov rejects natural theology outright. On the other hand, there is the deeper metaphysical layer, where Solovyov’s own arguments, hidden within his elaborate metaphysical structures, can themselves be considered as a form of natural theology. The paper will conclude that, despite the overall failure of his arguments, Solovyov can still provide inspiration for Orthodox theologians by attempting a form of natural theology within an Orthodox context.