more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 15440

[filed under theme 9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 8. Parts of Objects / c. Wholes from parts ]

Full Idea

A whole is an extra item in our ontology only in the minimal sense that it is not identical to any of its proper parts; but it is not distinct from them either, so when we believe in the parts it is no extra burden to believe in the whole.

Gist of Idea

A whole is distinct from its parts, but is not a further addition in ontology

Source

David Lewis (Against Structural Universals [1986], 'The pictorial')

Book Ref

Lewis,David: 'Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology' [CUP 1999], p.91


A Reaction

A little confusing, to be 'not identical' and yet 'not different'. As Lewis says elsewhere, the whole is one, and the parts are not. A crux. Essentialism implies a sort of holism, that parts with a structure constitute a new thing.


The 17 ideas from 'Against Structural Universals'

Tropes are particular properties, which cannot recur, but can be exact duplicates [Lewis]
The 'magical' view of structural universals says they are atoms, even though they have parts [Lewis]
If 'methane' is an atomic structural universal, it has nothing to connect it to its carbon universals [Lewis]
The 'pictorial' view of structural universals says they are wholes made of universals as parts [Lewis]
The structural universal 'methane' needs the universal 'hydrogen' four times over [Lewis]
A whole is distinct from its parts, but is not a further addition in ontology [Lewis]
Mathematicians abstract by equivalence classes, but that doesn't turn a many into one [Lewis]
Maybe abstraction is just mereological subtraction [Lewis]
I assume there could be natural properties that are not instantiated in our world [Lewis]
Butane and Isobutane have the same atoms, but different structures [Lewis]
Composition is not just making new things from old; there are too many counterexamples [Lewis]
Different things (a toy house and toy car) can be made of the same parts at different times [Lewis]
Structural universals have a necessary connection to the universals forming its parts [Lewis]
We can't get rid of structural universals if there are no simple universals [Lewis]
If you think universals are immanent, you must believe them to be sparse, and not every related predicate [Lewis]
Universals are meant to give an account of resemblance [Lewis]
We can add a primitive natural/unnatural distinction to class nominalism [Lewis]