To exist and to count: A note on the minimalist view
Dialectica 63 (3):343-356 (2009)
| Abstract | 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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
  |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRoss P. Cameron (2010). How to Have a Radically Minimal Ontology. Philosophical Studies 151 (2):249-264.
Charles W. Harvey (1998). A Modest Constructionism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 5 (2/3):27-31.
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..
Gabriel Uzquiano (forthcoming). Mereology and Modality. In Shieva Kleinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-09-18Total downloads57 ( #17,319 of 549,041 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,041 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
