David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 103 (12):614-630 (2006)
Many philosophers think not. Many philosophers, in fact, seem to suppose that anyone who raises the question whether mereological sums can change their parts displays thereby a failure to grasp an essential feature of the concept “mereological sum.” It is hard to point to an indisputable example of this in print,[i] but it is a thesis I hear put forward very frequently in conversation (sometimes it is put forward in the form of an incredulous stare after I have said something that implies that mereological sums can change their parts)
|Keywords||Analytic Philosophy Contemporary Philosophy|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Crawford L. Elder (2008). Against Universal Mereological Composition. Dialectica 62 (4):433-454.
Paul Hovda (2013). Tensed Mereology. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):241-283.
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Grupp (2006). Mereological Nihilism: Quantum Atomism and the Impossibility of Material Constitution. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 16 (3):245-386.
Judith Crane (2012). Biological-Mereological Coincidence. Philosophical Studies 161 (2):309-325.
D. H. Sanford (2011). Can a Sum Change its Parts? Analysis 71 (2):235-239.
Berit Brogaard (2004). Species as Individuals. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):223-242.
Berit Brogaard (2000). Presentist Four-Dimensionalism. The Monist 83 (3):341-356.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads181 ( #10,690 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)62 ( #19,586 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?