more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 12815
[filed under theme 4. Formal Logic / G. Formal Mereology / 1. Mereology
]
Full Idea
The most fundamental criticism of classical mereology is that the theory is not applicable to most of the objects around us, and is accordingly of little use as a formal reconstruction of the concepts of part and whole which we actually employ.
Gist of Idea
Classical mereology doesn't apply well to the objects around us
Source
Peter Simons (Parts [1987], Intro)
Book Ref
Simons,Peter: 'Parts: a Study in Ontology' [OUP 1987], p.1
A Reaction
This sounds splendidly dismissive, but one might compare it with possible worlds semantics for modal logic, which most people take with a pinch of salt as an actual commitment, but find wonderfully clarifying in modal reasoning.
The
23 ideas
with the same theme
[formalised general theory of how parts relate to wholes]:
15845
|
It seems absurd that seeing a person's limbs, the one is many, and yet the many are one
[Plato]
|
13270
|
Are a part and whole one or many? Either way, what is the cause?
[Aristotle]
|
13282
|
Aristotle relativises the notion of wholeness to different measures
[Aristotle, by Koslicki]
|
10397
|
Abelard's mereology involves privileged and natural divisions, and principal parts
[Abelard, by King,P]
|
10706
|
Dedekind originally thought more in terms of mereology than of sets
[Dedekind, by Potter]
|
14121
|
The part-whole relation is ultimate and indefinable
[Russell]
|
10657
|
The counties of Utah, and the state, and its acres, are in no way different
[Goodman]
|
10806
|
Megethology is the result of adding plural quantification to mereology
[Lewis]
|
10662
|
Mereology is 'nihilistic' (just atoms) or 'universal' (no restrictions on what is 'whole')
[Inwagen, by Varzi]
|
13331
|
Part and whole contribute asymmetrically to one another, so must differ
[Fine,K]
|
9928
|
Mereology implies that acceptance of entities entails acceptance of conglomerates
[Burgess/Rosen]
|
15004
|
'Gunk' is an object in which proper parts all endlessly have further proper parts
[Sider]
|
15841
|
Mereology began as a nominalist revolt against the commitments of set theory
[Harte,V]
|
8465
|
Mereology has been exploited by some nominalists to achieve the effects of set theory
[Orenstein]
|
10648
|
Mereology need not be nominalist, though it is often taken to be so
[Varzi]
|
10655
|
Are there mereological atoms, and are all objects made of them?
[Varzi]
|
10659
|
There is something of which everything is part, but no null-thing which is part of everything
[Varzi]
|
12815
|
Classical mereology doesn't apply well to the objects around us
[Simons]
|
12819
|
A 'part' has different meanings for individuals, classes, and masses
[Simons]
|
12832
|
Complement: the rest of the Universe apart from some individual, written x-bar
[Simons]
|
12834
|
Criticisms of mereology: parts? transitivity? sums? identity? four-dimensional?
[Simons]
|
10707
|
Mereology elides the distinction between the cards in a pack and the suits
[Potter]
|
13258
|
The 'aggregative' objections says mereology gets existence and location of objects wrong
[Koslicki]
|