The vagueness argument for mereological universalism

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (3):357–368 (2006)
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)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2006.00266.x
 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: 22,037
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
David Lewis (1983). New Work for a Theory of Universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (December):343-377.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Daniel Z. Korman, Ordinary Objects. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
David Vander Laan (2010). A Relevance Constraint on Composition. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):135-145.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

571 ( #1,771 of 1,934,364 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

166 ( #843 of 1,934,364 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

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