David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dialectica 63 (3):343-356 (2009)
Sometimes mereologists have problems with counting. We often don't want to count the parts of maximally connected objects as full-fledged objects themselves, and we don't want to count discontinuous objects as parts of further, full-fledged objects. But whatever one takes "full-fledged object" to mean, the axioms and theorems of classical, extensional mereology commit us to the existence both of parts and of wholes – all on a par, included in the domain of quantification – and this makes mereology look counterintuitive to various philosophers. In recent years, a proposal has been advanced to solve the tension between mereology and familiar ways of counting objects, under the label of Minimalist View . The Minimalist View may be summarized in the slogan: "Count x as an object iff it does not overlap with any y you have already counted as an object". The motto seems prima facie very promising but, we shall argue, when one looks at it more closely, it is not. On the contrary, the Minimalist View involves an ambiguity that can be solved in quite different directions. We argue that one resolution of the ambiguity makes it incompatible with mereology. This way, the Minimalist View can lend no support to mereology at all. We suggest that the Minimalist View can become compatible with mereology once its ambiguity is solved by interpreting it in what we call an epistemic or conceptual fashion: whereas mereology has full metaphysical import, the Minimalist View may account for our ways of selecting "conceptually salient" entities. But even once it is so disambiguated, it is doubtful that the Minimalist View can help to make mereology more palatable, for it cannot make it any more compatible with commonsensical ways of counting objects.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Gilbert Ryle (1949). The Concept of Mind. Hutchinson and Co.
David Lewis (1991). Parts of Classes. Blackwell.
Theodore Sider (2007). Parthood. Philosophical Review 116 (1):51-91.
Gottlob Frege (1953). The Foundations of Arithmetic. Evanston, Ill.,Northwestern University Press.
Byeong-Uk Yi (1999). Is Mereology Ontologically Innocent? Philosophical Studies 93 (2):141-160.
Citations of this work BETA
Francesco Berto (2008). Adynaton and Material Exclusion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2):165 – 190.
Jeroen Smid (2015). The Ontological Parsimony of Mereology. Philosophical Studies 172 (12):3253-3271.
Similar books and articles
Ross P. Cameron (2010). How to Have a Radically Minimal Ontology. Philosophical Studies 151 (2):249 - 264.
Michael Esfeld & Vincent Lam (2011). Ontic Structural Realism as a Metaphysics of Objects. In Alisa Bokulich & Peter Bokulich (eds.), Scientific Structuralism. Springer Science+Business Media 143-159.
Charles W. Harvey (1998). A Modest Constructionism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 5 (2/3):27-31.
Achille C. Varzi (1996). Parts, Wholes, and Part-Whole Relations: The Prospects of Mereotopology. Data and Knowledge Engineering 20:259–286.
Achille C. Varzi (2000). Mereological Commitments. Dialectica 54 (4):283–305.
Desmond Paul Henry (1991). Medieval Mereology. B.R. Grüner.
Željko Bošković & Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2007). Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Blackwell Pub..
Cedric Boeckx (2008). Understanding Minimalist Syntax: Lessons From Locality in Long-Distance Dependencies. Blackwell Pub..
Added to index2009-09-18
Total downloads229 ( #13,111 of 1,937,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)19 ( #25,227 of 1,937,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?