Essence,Modality,and Zero-Grounding

The essentialist theory of modality claims that the source of metaphysical necessity is the essence of things.Put another way;a proposition p is necessarily true if and only if p is true in virtue of the essence of things.Based on different understandings of essences,there are currently two versions of essentialist theory: definitional essentialism,which understands essences in terms of real definition,and identity-based essentialism,which understands essences in terms of generalized identity.However,neither can provide a plausible explanation of “how essences can explain metaphysical necessities.”Recently,Leech(2021)raises a challenge to identity-based essentialism.She considers that essentialists can adopt a Kripkean proof and prove that a generalized identity proposition(p holds just is q holds)is necessary.This proof has a necessary premise: the generalized selfidentity proposition(p holds just is p holds).Leech argues that identity-based essentialism cannot explain the necessity of the generalized self-identity proposition.I characterize her argument as a dilemma: Identity-based essentialism must explain why the generalized self-identity proposition is necessary.This explanation either appeals to the essence or does not appeal to the essence.If this explanation appeals to the essence,then it faces the problem of infinite regress,where the essence cannot successfully explain necessity(Essence Horn);if this explanation does not appeal to the essence,then some metaphysical necessities can be explained by the something other than essence,the essentialist theory of modality is wrong(Alternative Horn).Thus,either essence cannot successfully explain necessity or the essentialist theory of modality is wrong.This paper aims to defend the essentialist theory of modality in response to Leech’s dilemma.I argue that essentialists can overcome Essence Horn because we can postulate essential truths as fundamental necessities(base class of necessity)to avoid infinite regress.I first argue that the problem of infinite regress does not entail that essence cannot successfully explain necessity.We need to discuss further whether infinite regress is vicious or benign.I argue that the infinite regress is vicious,and the reason lies in the failure of explanations of necessity in general.We can distinguish between explanations of particular necessity and explanations of necessity in general.The former explains the necessity of a particular proposition,while the latter requires us to answer why there are any necessities at all.In an infinitely regressing chain of explanations,each level of explanation introduces a new necessary proposition,and the necessity of the introduced proposition remains unexplained.The failure of explanation is characterized by the fact that the phenomenon we seek to explain reappears as its own explanation.In order to overcome the vicious regress,we should postulate fundamental necessity as the base of explaining necessity.I then offer a mechanism for how essence explains necessity within the framework of identity-based essentialism: that essence is zero-grounded explains the necessity of essential statements.Using this mechanism to respond to Leech: the generalized self-identity statement(p holds just is p holds)is necessary because the generalized self-identity statement is zerogrounded.Identity-based essentialism reduces both essence and grounding to generalized identities.I further reduce zero-grounding statements to generalized identity statements: the generalized self-identity statement(p holds just is p holds)is necessary because the generalized self-identity statement holds just is the empty set holds.In the end,I offer a rigorous definition of the base class of necessity within the framework of identity-based essentialism.