The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Making Things Up
Abstract
We frequently speak of certain things or phenomena being built out of or based in others. This soda can is made of molecules, which are in turn made of atoms, which are in turn made of subatomic particles. The behavior of a crowd is based in the behaviors of and interactions between individual people—it behaves as it does in virtue of the individual behaviors and interactions. Making Things Up concerns the family of relations that such talk appeals to, which Karen Bennett calls “building relations.” Grounding is one currently popular such relation; so too are composition, property realization, and—controversially—causation. Building relations connect more fundamental things (like atoms) to less fundamental things (like soda cans). But what are we even talking about when we say that something is more fundamental than something else? This book illuminates the ideas of building and fundamentality, as they are deployed in metaphysics and elsewhere in philosophy. Bennett paints a picture of a hierarchically structured world, and makes good sense of otherwise somewhat cryptic talk of “in virtue of” and fundamentality.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Andsince grounding just is a constitutive or 'vertical' relation of ontological priority, it's the best candidate out of Bennett's building relations for clarifying what material causation is.”
From Grounding panentheism (2026) · cites this paper as Bennett (2017)
In the citing paper
“the explanandum in a metaphysical explanation is nothing over and above the explanans, or at least, the explanandum is, in some sense, not a substantial addition to the ontology when we already have the explanans.”
From Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature (2020) · cites this paper as Bennett (2017, Section 8.2.2)
In the citing paper
“if A wholly explains B then B supervenes upon A”
From Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature (2020) · cites this paper as Bennett (2017, section 3.3)
In the citing paper
“There are no probabilistic or indeterministic metaphysical explanations (see Bennett (2017, section 3.3.1))”
From Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature (2020) · cites this paper as Bennett (2017, section 3.3.1)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nomothetic Explanation and Humeanism about Laws of Nature
Bhogal, H. (2020) · Oxford Studies in Metaphysics Volume 12 · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192893314.003.0006 · Cited by 74
What is Wrong with Self-Grounding?
Kovacs, D. M. (2018) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-017-9934-y · Cited by 20
Oberle, T. (2026) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412525100978 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, K.
- Corresponding author
- Bennett, Karen
- Venue
- Oxford Scholarship Online
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2017-06-22
- OpenAlex
- W2783800107
- Cited by
- 474
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 84 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 10
- FWCI
- 43.27
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Keywords
- fundamentality, grounding, composition, causality, hierarchy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review