more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
For my money, the real problem with the term 'sum' is that it is singular.
Gist of Idea
The problem with the term 'sum' is that it is singular
Source
Verity Harte (Plato on Parts and Wholes [2002], 1.1)
Book Ref
Harte,Verity: 'Plato on Parts and Wholes' [OUP 2002], p.11
A Reaction
Her point is that the surface grammar makes you accept a unity here, with no account of what unifies it, or even whether there is a unity. Does classical mereology have a concept (as the rest of us do) of 'disunity'?
15838 | The problem with the term 'sum' is that it is singular [Harte,V] |
15837 | What exactly is a 'sum', and what exactly is 'composition'? [Harte,V] |
15839 | If something is 'more than' the sum of its parts, is the extra thing another part, or not? [Harte,V] |
15841 | Mereology began as a nominalist revolt against the commitments of set theory [Harte,V] |
15842 | An ad hominem refutation is reasonable, if it uses the opponent's assumptions [Harte,V] |
15848 | Mereology treats constitution as a criterion of identity, as shown in the axiom of extensionality [Harte,V] |
15858 | Traditionally, the four elements are just what persists through change [Harte,V] |