David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dialectica 61 (1):127–159 (2007)
This paper provides a detailed examination of Kit Fine’s sizeable contribution to the development of a neo-Aristotelian alternative to standard mereology; I focus especially on the theory of ‘rigid’ and ‘variable embodiments’, as defended in Fine 1999. Section 2 briefly describes the system I call ‘standard mereology’. Section 3 lays out some of the main principles and consequences of Aristotle’s own mereology, in order to be able to compare Fine’s system with its historical precursor. Section 4 gives an exposition of Fine’s theory of embodiments and goes on to isolate a number of potential concerns to which this account gives rise. In particular, I argue that (i) Fine’s theory threatens to proliferate primitive sui generis relations of parthood and composition, whose characteristics must be stipulatively imposed on them, relative to particular domains; (ii) given its ‘superabundance’ of objects, Fine’s system far outstrips the (arguably) already inflated ontological commitments of standard mereology; and (iii) there is a legitimate question as to why we should consider Fine’s primitive and sui generis relations of parthood and composition to be genuinely mereological at all, given their formal profile. These three objections lead me to conclude that we ought to explore other avenues that preserve the highly desirable, hylomorphic, features of Fine’s mereology, while avoiding its methodological and ontological excesses.
|Keywords||Kit Fine Mereology Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics Rigid embodiments Variable embodiments Mereological composition Parthood Hylomorphism|
|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
David Lewis (1991). Parts of Classes. Blackwell.
Theodore Sider (2001). Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press.
Peter M. Simons (1987/2000). Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford University Press.
Peter van Inwagen (1990). Material Beings. Cornell University Press.
Kit Fine (1994). Essence and Modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8:1-16.
Citations of this work BETA
Tobias Hansson Wahlberg (2014). Institutional Objects, Reductionism and Theories of Persistence. Dialectica 68 (4):525-562.
Similar books and articles
Paul Hovda (2009). What Is Classical Mereology? Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (1):55 - 82.
Kathrin Koslicki (2008). The Structure of Objects. Oxford University Press.
John Divers (2008). Coincidence and Form. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 82 (1):119-137.
Desmond Paul Henry (1991). Medieval Mereology. B.R. Grüner.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2014). Mereology and Modality. In Shieva Kleinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press 33-56.
Aaron J. Cotnoir (2010). Anti-Symmetry and Non-Extensional Mereology. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):396-405.
Achille C. Varzi (1996). Parts, Wholes, and Part-Whole Relations: The Prospects of Mereotopology. Data and Knowledge Engineering 20:259–286.
Thomas Mormann (2010). Structural Universals as Structural Parts: Toward a General Theory of Parthood and Composition. Axiomathes 20 (2 -3):229 - 253.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads125 ( #29,917 of 1,796,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #44,461 of 1,796,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?