On one influential view, metaphysical fundamentality can be understood in terms of joint‐carving. Ted Sider has recently argued that (i) some first order quantifier is joint‐carving, and (ii) modal notions are not joint‐carving. After vindicating the theoretical indispensability of quantification against recent criticism, I will defend a logical result due to Arnold Koslow which implies that (i) and (ii) are incompatible. I will therefore consider an alternative understanding of Sider's metaphysics to the effect that (i) some first order quantifier is joint‐carving, and (iii) intensional notions are not joint‐carving. Another result due to Koslow entails that (i) and (iii) are also incompatible. I will argue that this second result is inconclusive. Nevertheless, (iii) is incompatible with another tenet of Sider's metaphysics, namely that (iv) ‘being joint‐carving’ is itself joint‐carving. In order to resolve the inconsistency, I will tentatively argue that condition (iv) should be renounced.

中文翻译：

---

沙漠景观中的意识形态*

从一种有影响力的观点来看，形而上学的根本性可以通过共同雕刻来理解。特德·西德（Ted Sider）最近争论说（i）一些一阶量词是联合雕刻，而（ii）模态概念不是联合雕刻。在证明了量化理论对近期批评的不可或缺性之后，我将捍卫阿诺德·科斯洛（Arnold Koslow）的逻辑结论，这暗示了（i）和（ii）是不相容的。因此，我将考虑对Sider形而上学的另一种理解，即（i）一些一阶量词是联合雕刻的，（iii）内涵概念不是联合雕刻的。由于Koslow而导致的另一个结果是（i）和（iii）也不兼容。我认为第二个结果尚无定论。然而，（iii）与Sider形而上学的另一个宗旨是不相容的，即（iv）“共同雕刻”本身就是共同雕刻。为了解决不一致问题，我将暂定应放弃条件（iv）。