 Distinguish between a local explanation of the \(F\)-ness of some particular \(X\) and a global explanation of why there are any things that are \(F\) at all. Some philosophers have argued that when we have an infinite regress, with the \(F\)-ness of each \(X\) being accounted for by appeal to another \(X\) that is \(F\), then we do indeed lack a global explanation of why there are things that are \(F\), but we nevertheless have a local explanation for each of the infinitely many \(X\)s as to why it is \(F\). (This seems to be the position of Hume’s Cleanthes in Part IX of Hume 1779.)