Some Work for a Theory of Grounding?

In her “No Work for a Theory of Grounding,” Jessica Wilson argues that we have no need for a theory of what she calls Big-G Grounding. The reason for this, thinks Wilson, is that the work that Big-G Grounding is invoked for can be better done by what she calls small-g grounding relations: membership, parenthood, realization, and so on. Contra Wilson, I argue that small-g grounding relations may not allow us to do all the grounding work that needs to be done. In particular, I argue that small-g grounding relations may not be adequate to the task of engaging with the work of historical Western and non-Western figures; nor do they allow us to explore the full array of possibilities regarding the overarching structure of realityReality. To this end, I offer two case studies: one that explores dependence relations in the work of Leibniz, and the other the cosmology of the Chinese Buddhist thinker FazangFazang. Although I do not defend the claim that there is in fact some work for a theory of Grounding, my argument is highly suggestive of it.