Abstract:In his book Idealism and the Harmony of Thought and Reality, Thomas Hofweber proposes immanent metaphysics as a novel argumentative strategy for making progress in metaphysics. The strategy uses the claim (perfection) that certain concepts are, by our own lights, perfect for describing reality to justify inferences from linguistic premises about such concepts to metaphysical conclusions. To establish the claim (perfection) for some concept, Hofweber must show both (Inescapability) that the concept is inescapable, i.e. cannot by our own lights be rationally replaced for the purpose of inquiry, and (Lock) that we are rationally locked into pursuing inquiry, that it is never rational by our own lights to give up pursuing inquiry. But firstly, Hofweber’s argument for (Lock) is unsound because its central premise that giving up inquiry cannot contribute to the aim of inquiry is false. Secondly, his most promising alternative for establishing (Lock) is to argue that inquiry is what Enoch and Schechter call a rationally required project. But this requires broadening the operative notion of "inquiry" in a way that leaves Hofweber unable to establish (Inescapability) for any concept for inquiry in this broad sense. Immanent metaphysics fails in either case, because Hofweber fails to establish the conjunction of (Inescapability) and (Lock), and thus, to establish (Perfection). Inescapable concepts don’t license metaphysical conclusions.
