Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter October 21, 2014

Mereological Principles in Metaphysics

Márta Ujvári
From the journal Metaphysica

Abstract

The relevance of mereology for metaphysics is a perennial theme. In particular, the part-whole relation is applied recently to colocated qua-objects of different sortals: say, a statue and its constituting piece of clay. K. Koslicki (2008. The structure of objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press) claims that only the lump is part of the statue; moreover, its proper part, but not vice versa since the statue has an immaterial part not shared by the lump. She backs her claim by appealing to the weak supplementation principle (WSP). M. Donnelly (2011. “Using mereological principles to support metaphysics.” The philosophical quarterly 61:225–46) is critical with the asymmetry argument. I point out that the asymmetry argument trades on the equivocity of the very notion of “part”. In the Aristotelian-scholastic tradition Koslicki’s neo-Aristotelianism appeals to, “part” shows up with various meanings not all of them admitting the mereological reading of “part” her argument hinges on. With her argument, the absurd consequence ensues that the lump can also be shown to have an immaterial part not shared by the statue. I show that the presumed immaterial parts cannot be proper parts of composites, only their improper parts. Thus they fail to fall under (WSP). My ultimate goal is to disentangle the mereological and the metaphysical threads by showing what goes with what without taking sides either with the mereologist or the traditional metaphysician.

References

Aquinas, T. 1920. Summa Theologica. I, III. Translated into English by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 2nd and revised edition. Online Edition by Kevin Knight, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

Aquinas, T. 1955–57. Summa Contra Gentiles. New York: Hanover House. Edited by O. P. JosephKenny, Book II: Creation, Translated by J. F.Anderson.Search in Google Scholar

Aquinas, T. 1961. Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company. html – Edited by O. P. Joseph Kenny, Translated by John P. Rowan.Search in Google Scholar

Aristotle. 1984. “Metaphysics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, edited by J.Barnes, Vol. 2, 8591. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Burke, M. 1994. “Dion and Theon: An Essentialist Solution to an Ancient Puzzle.” Journal of Philosophy90:12939.10.2307/2940990Search in Google Scholar

Burke, M. 2004. “Dion, Theon, and the Many-Thinkers Problem.” Analysis64:24250.10.1093/analys/64.3.242Search in Google Scholar

Chisholm, R. 1973. “Parts as Essential to Their Wholes.” Review of Metaphysics26:581603.Search in Google Scholar

Donnelly, M. 2011. “Using Mereological Principles to Support Metaphysics.” The Philosophical Quarterly61:22546.10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.683.xSearch in Google Scholar

Eisler, R. 1899. Wörterbuch der Philosophischen Begriffe und Ausdrücke. Berlin: Siegfried Mittler und Sohn.Search in Google Scholar

Fine, K. 1982. “Acts, Events and Things.” In Language and Ontology, Proceedings of the 6th International Wittgenstein Symposium, edited by W.Leinfellner, E.R.Kraemer , J.Schank, 97105. Wien: Hölder – Pichler – Tempsky.Search in Google Scholar

Henry, D. P. 1991. Medieval Mereology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: B.R. Grüner.10.1075/bsp.16Search in Google Scholar

Koslicki, K. 2008. The Structure of Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539895.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Loux, M. 2006. “Aristotle’s Constituent Ontology.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, edited by D. W.Zimmerman, Vol. 2, 20750. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar

McDaniel, K. 2010. “Parts and Wholes.” Philosophy Compass5/5:41225.10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00238.xSearch in Google Scholar

Noonan, H. 1991. “Indeterminate Identity, Contingent Identity and Abelardian Predicates.” The Philosophical Quarterly41:18393.10.2307/2219592Search in Google Scholar

Simons, P. 1987. Parts. A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar

Thomson, J. J. 1983. “Parthood and Identity across Time.” Journal of Philosophy80:20120.10.2307/2026004Search in Google Scholar

Ujvári, M. 2004. “Cambridge Change and Sortal Essentialism.” Metaphysica5(2):2534.Search in Google Scholar

Ujvári, M. 2012. “Prior’s Fable and the Limits of De Re Possibility.” Synthese188:45967.10.1007/s11229-011-9938-0Search in Google Scholar

Yablo, S. 2010. Things. Papers on Objects, Events and Properties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar


Note

This paper has been read and discussed at a staff seminar at the Logic Department of Eötvös Lorand University, Budapest in October 2013. I am grateful to my colleagues for their helpful comments and criticism.


Published Online: 2014-10-21
Published in Print: 2014-11-28

©2014 by De Gruyter