Abstract
In this paper I outline the main features of Karen Bennett’s (Australasian Journal of Philosophy 1–21, 2011) non-classical mereology, and identify its methodological costs. I argue that Bennett’s mereology cannot account for the composition of structural universals because it cannot explain the mereological difference between isomeric universals, such as being butane and being isobutane. I consider responses, which come at costs to the view.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In slot-mereology ‘x is a parthood slot of y’ is formally written as ‘PS xy’ and ‘x fills y’ as ‘Fxy’.
Proper parthood is formally written as ‘PPxy’.
‘PPs xy’ is Proper Parthood Slot: ‘x is a proper parthood slot of y just in case x is a parthood slot of y that y does not fill’ (2011: 9). See Bennett’s (2011: 15, n. 26) derivation for technical details.
Thanks to Peter Forrest and André Gallois for helpful comments and discussion.
References
Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Universals and scientific realism II: A theory of universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, K. (2011). Having a Part Twice Over. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.1080/00048402.2011.637936 (iFirst article): 1–21.
Lewis, D. (1986). Against structural universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64(1), 25–46.
Quine, W. V. (1951). Ontology and ideology. Philosophical Studies, 2(1), 11–15.