Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Philosophy 103 (12):614-630 (2006)
|Abstract||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||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Achille Varzi (2000). Topological Essentialism. Philosophical Studies 100 (3):217 - 236.
Berit Brogaard (2004). Species as Individuals. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):223-242.
D. H. Sanford (2011). Can a Sum Change its Parts? Analysis 71 (2):235-239.
Judith Crane (2012). Biological-Mereological Coincidence. Philosophical Studies 161 (2):309-325.
Jeffrey Grupp (2006). Mereological Nihilism: Quantum Atomism and the Impossibility of Material Constitution. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 16 (3):245-386.
Berit Brogaard (2000). Presentist Four-Dimensionalism. The Monist 83 (3):341-356.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads91 ( #9,447 of 729,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,864 of 729,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?