more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
It is an open question whether there are any mereological atoms (with no proper parts), and also whether every object is ultimately made up of atoms.
Gist of Idea
Are there mereological atoms, and are all objects made of them?
Source
Achille Varzi (Mereology [2003], 3)
Book Ref
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.8
A Reaction
Such a view would have to presuppose (metaphysically) that the divisibility of matter has limits. If one follows this route, then are there only 'natural' wholes, or are we 'unrestricted' in our view of how the atoms combine? I favour the natural route.
| 10648 | Mereology need not be nominalist, though it is often taken to be so [Varzi] |
| 10647 | Parts may or may not be attached, demarcated, arbitrary, material, extended, spatial or temporal [Varzi] |
| 10651 | If 'part' is reflexive, then identity is a limit case of parthood [Varzi] |
| 10649 | 'Part' stands for a reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive relation [Varzi] |
| 10653 | Maybe set theory need not be well-founded [Varzi] |
| 10652 | Conceivability may indicate possibility, but literary fantasy does not [Varzi] |
| 10654 | The parthood relation will help to define at least seven basic predicates [Varzi] |
| 10655 | Are there mereological atoms, and are all objects made of them? [Varzi] |
| 10658 | Sameness of parts won't guarantee identity if their arrangement matters [Varzi] |
| 10659 | There is something of which everything is part, but no null-thing which is part of everything [Varzi] |
| 10661 | 'Composition is identity' says multitudes are the reality, loosely composing single things [Varzi] |