The vagueness argument for mereological universalism

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (3):357–368 (2006)
Abstract
In this paper, I critically discuss one of the more influential arguments for mereological universalism, what I will call ‘the Vagueness Argument’. I argue that a premise of the Vagueness Argument is not well supported and that there are at least two good reasons for thinking that the premise in question is false.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,449
External links
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

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA
David Vander Laan (2010). A Relevance Constraint on Composition. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):135-145.
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

39 ( #45,041 of 1,103,217 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #183,768 of 1,103,217 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.