David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 159 (1):1-20 (2012)
David Lewis insists that restrictivist composition must be motivated by and occur due to some intuitive desiderata for a relation R among parts that compose wholes, and insists that a restrictivist’s relation R must be vague. Peter van Inwagen agrees. In this paper, I argue that restrictivists need not use such examples of relation R as a criterion for composition, and any restrictivist should reject a number of related mereological theses. This paper critiques Lewis and van Inwagen (and others) on their respective mereological metaphysics, and offers a Golden Mean between their two opposite extremes. I argue for a novel account of mereology I call Modal Mereology that is an alternative to Classical Mereology. A modal mereologist can be a universalist about the possible composition of wholes from parts and a restrictivist about the actual composition of wholes from parts. I argue that puzzles facing Modal Mereology (e.g., puzzles concerning Cambridge changes and the Problem of the Many, and how to demarcate the actual from the possible) are also faced in similar forms by classical universalists. On my account, restricted composition is rather motivated by and occurs due to a possible whole’s instantiating an actual type. Universalists commonly believe in such types and defend their existence from objections and puzzles. The Modal Mereological restrictivist can similarly defend the existence of such types (adding that such types are the only wholes) from similar objections and puzzles.
|Keywords||Mereology Universalism Restrictivism Modal Supervenience David Lewis Peter van Inwagen Composition Wholes Parts Problem of the Many|
|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
Tyler Burge (1979). Individualism and the Mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4 (1):73-122.
Arthur Danto (1964). The Artworld. Journal of Philosophy 61 (19):571-584.
Hud Hudson (2001). A Materialist Metaphysics of the Human Person. Cornell University Press.
Jaegwon Kim (1984). Concepts of Supervenience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 45 (December):153-76.
Jaegwon Kim (1993). Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gabriel Uzquiano (2014). Mereology and Modality. In Shieva Kleinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press. 33-56.
Nicholas Smith (2005). A Plea for Things That Are Not Quite All There: Or, Is There a Problem About Vague Composition and Vague Existence? Journal of Philosophy 102 (8):381 - 421.
David H. Sanford (1993). The Problem of the Many, Many Composition Questions, and Naive Mereology. Noûs 27 (2):219-228.
Danilo Suster (1996). Modality and Supervenience. Acta Analytica 15 (15):141-155.
Takashi Yagisawa (2008). Modal Realism with Modal Tense 1. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2):309-327.
Thomas Mormann (2010). Structural Universals as Structural Parts: Toward a General Theory of Parthood and Composition. Axiomathes 20 (2 -3):229 - 253.
John Divers (1996). Supervenience for Operators. Synthese 106 (1):103-12.
Jan Westerhoff (2004). A Taxonomy of Composition Operations. Logique and Analyse 2004 (47):375-393.
Peter Hawke (2011). Van Inwagen's Modal Skepticism. Philosophical Studies 153 (3):351-364.
Joshua T. Spencer (2006). Two Mereological Arguments Against the Possibility of an Omniscient Being. Philo 9 (1):62-72.
Kathrin Koslicki (2007). Towards a Neo-Aristotelian Mereology. Dialectica 61 (1):127–159.
Added to index2010-12-11
Total downloads67 ( #21,398 of 1,100,727 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #16,846 of 1,100,727 )
How can I increase my downloads?