In the literature on ground, characterizations of it often begin with statements of its various logical or structural features. There are several important rationales for this. One rationale concerns the explanatory or determinative aspects of ground. Many of ground’s logical or structural features are often assumed to derive directly from its explanatory or determinative aspects. A second rationale concerns the logical coherence of ground. It was discovered in the early 20th century that the so-called naïve conception of set was paradoxical. This had profound implications for logic, mathematics, and various ambitious philosophical projects concerning their foundations. One lesson many learned from this harrowing episode is that seemingly innocuous notions may lead to logical incoherence. The liar paradox threatens the logical coherence of truth. The sorites paradox threatens the logical coherence of vague terms, which likely includes most of the terms one ordinarily uses.