more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 8279

[filed under theme 9. Objects / C. Structure of Objects / 5. Composition of an Object ]

Full Idea

It is not at all clear that the identity of a composite object can be fixed by the identity of its original composition, since there are good grounds for claiming that the reverse is in fact the case.

Gist of Idea

The identity of composite objects isn't fixed by original composition, because how do you identify the origin?

Source

E.J. Lowe (The Possibility of Metaphysics [1998], 7.5)

Book Ref

Lowe,E.J.: 'The Possibility of Metaphysics' [OUP 2001], p.166


A Reaction

That is, how could you identify the origin if you didn't know what it was that had originated? Nice point. See also Idea 8274. Vicars must make sure they baptise the right baby.

Related Idea

Idea 8274 Socrates can't have a necessary origin, because he might have had no 'origin' [Lowe on Kripke]


The 23 ideas with the same theme [objects seen as made up of their parts]:

In Parmenides, if composition is identity, a whole is nothing more than its parts [Plato, by Harte,V]
If one object is divided into its parts, someone can then say that one are many and many is one [Plato]
Is there a house over and above its bricks? [Aristotle]
A mass consists of its atoms, so the addition or removal of one changes its identity [Locke]
Identity is an atemporal relation, but composition is relative to times [Wiggins, by Sider]
The many are many and the one is one, so they can't be identical [Lewis]
Lewis affirms 'composition as identity' - that an object is no more than its parts [Lewis, by Merricks]
Composition is not just making new things from old; there are too many counterexamples [Lewis]
If contact causes composition, do two colliding balls briefly make one object? [Inwagen]
If bricks compose a house, that is at least one thing, but it might be many things [Inwagen]
Why should packed-together particles be a thing (Mt Everest), but not scattered ones? [Benardete,JA]
The identity of composite objects isn't fixed by original composition, because how do you identify the origin? [Lowe]
'Composition as identity' says that an object just is the objects which compose it [Sider]
If a chair could be made of slightly different material, that could lead to big changes [Hale]
'Composition is identity' says multitudes are the reality, loosely composing single things [Varzi]
'Unrestricted composition' says any two things can make up a third thing [Merricks]
Composition as identity is false, as identity is never between a single thing and many things [Merricks]
Composition as identity is false, as it implies that things never change their parts [Merricks]
There is no visible difference between statues, and atoms arranged statuewise [Merricks]
Composition is asymmetric and transitive [Simons]
The idea of composition, that parts of the world are 'made of' something, is no longer helpful [Ladyman/Ross]
Complex particulars are either masses, or composites, or sets [Hossack]
The relation of composition is indispensable to the part-whole relation for individuals [Hossack]