more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The underlying logic of classical extensional mereology does not have the resources to deal with temporal and modal notions such as temporary part, temporal part, essential part, or essential permanent part.
Gist of Idea
Classical mereology doesn't handle temporal or modal notions very well
Source
Peter Simons (Parts [1987], Intro)
Book Ref
Simons,Peter: 'Parts: a Study in Ontology' [OUP 1987], p.1
A Reaction
Simons tries to rectify this in the later chapters of his book, with modifications rather than extensions. Since everyone struggles with temporal and modal issues of identity, we shouldn't judge too harshly.
| 17245 | A part of a part is a part of a whole [Hobbes] |
| 18999 | y is only a proper part of x if there is a z which 'makes up the difference' between them [Yablo] |
| 10564 | We might combine the axioms of set theory with the axioms of mereology [Fine,K] |
| 14984 | Which should be primitive in mereology - part, or overlap? [Sider] |
| 12813 | Two standard formalisations of part-whole theory are the Calculus of Individuals, and Mereology [Simons] |
| 12816 | Classical mereology doesn't handle temporal or modal notions very well [Simons] |
| 12821 | The part-relation is transitive and asymmetric (and thus irreflexive) [Simons] |
| 18847 | Each wheel is part of a car, but the four wheels are not a further part [Simons] |
| 10677 | Extensional mereology needs two definitions and two axioms [Hossack] |