Graduate studies at Western
Analysis 63 (280):305–309 (2003)
|Abstract||Although Aranyosi's claim that McTaggart's "set of parts" is a set rather than a fusion is correct, his attempt to restate McTaggart's conception needs revision. Aranyosi argues that "the fusion of cats is identical with the fusion of all cat-parts, 'regardless of whether all cat-parts are parts of cats or not.'" Fusions have unique decompositions into what David Lewis calls "nice parts." Cats are nice parts of cat fusions, as are maximal spatio-temporally connected parts. Part of Aranyosi's argument fails when it deals with cats; part of it fails when it deals with maximal spatio-temporally connected parts. He does not identify one kind of nice part that allows his whole argument to go through.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gabriel Uzquiano (forthcoming). Mereology and Modality. In Shieva Kleinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press.
David-Hillel Ruben (1999). Actions and Their Parts. In Proceedings of the Twentith World Congress of Philosophy, vol. 2.
Achille C. Varzi (2009). Universalism entails Extensionalism. Analysis 69 (4):599 - 604.
Ross P. Cameron (forthcoming). Parts Generate the Whole, but They Are Not Identical to It. In Donald Baxter & Aaron Cotnoir (eds.), Composition as Identity. Oxford University Press.
David H. Sanford (2003). Fusion Confusion. Analysis 63 (277):1–4.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #292,723 of 738,617 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?