|
13333
|
The matter is a relatively unstructured version of the object, like a set without membership structure [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
The wood is, as it were, a relatively unstructured version of the tree, just as the set {a,b,c,d} is an unstructured counterpart of the set {{a,b},{c,d}}.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §5)
|
|
A reaction:
He is trying to give a modern logicians' account of the Aristotelian concept of 'form' (as applied to matter). It is part of the modern project that objects must be connected to the formalism of mereology or set theory. If it works, are we thereby wiser?
|
|
14748
|
The many are many and the one is one, so they can't be identical [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
What is true of the many is not exactly what is true of the one. After all they are many while it is one. The number of the many is six, whereas the number of the fusion is one. The singletons of the many are distinct from the singleton of the one.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6)
|
|
A reaction:
I wouldn't take this objection to be conclusive. 'Some pebbles' seem to be many, but a 'handful of pebbles' seem to be one, where the physical situation might be identical. If they are not identical, then the non-identity is purely conceptual.
|
|
6129
|
Lewis affirms 'composition as identity' - that an object is no more than its parts [Lewis, by Merricks]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lewis says that the parts of a thing are identical with the whole they compose, calling his view 'composition as identity', which is the claim that a physical object is 'nothing over and above its parts'.
|
|
From:
report of David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], p.84-7) by Trenton Merricks - Objects and Persons §I.IV
|
|
A reaction:
The ontological economy of this view is obviously attractive, but I don't agree with it. You certainly can't say that all identity consists entirely of composition by parts, because the parts need identity to get the view off the ground.
|
|
13326
|
A 'temporary' part is a part at one time, but may not be at another, like a carburetor [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
First, a thing can be a part in a way that is relative to a time, for example, that a newly installed carburettor is now part of my car, whereas earlier it was not. (This will be called a 'temporary' part).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[Cf Idea 13327 for the 'second' concept of part] I'm immediately uneasy. Being a part seems to be a univocal concept. He seems to be distinguishing parts which are necessary for identity from those which aren't. Fine likes to define by example.
|
|
13327
|
A 'timeless' part just is a part, not a part at some time; some atoms are timeless parts of a water molecule [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
Second, an object can be a part of another in a way that is not relative to time ('timeless'). It is not appropriate to ask when it is a part. Thus pants and jacket are parts of the suit, atoms of a water molecule, and two pints part of a quart of milk.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[cf Idea 13326 for the other concept of 'part'] Again I am uneasy that 'part' could have two meanings. A Life Member is a member in the same way that a normal paid up member is a member.
|
|
15519
|
Trout-turkeys exist, despite lacking cohesion, natural joints and united causal power [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
A trout-turkey is inhomogeneous, disconnected, not in contrast with its surroundings. It is not cohesive, not causally integrated, not a causal unit in its impact on the rest of the world. It is not carved at the joints. That doesn't affect its existence.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.5)
|
|
A reaction:
A nice pre-emptive strike against all the reasons why anyone might think more is needed for unity than a mereological fusion.
|
|
15521
|
Given cats, a fusion of cats adds nothing further to reality [Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
Given a prior commitment to cats, a commitment to cat-fusions is not a further commitment. The fusion is nothing over and above the cats that compose it. It just is them. They just are it. Together or separately, the cats are the same portion of Reality.
|
|
From:
David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991], 3.6)
|
|
A reaction:
The two extremes of ontology are that there are no objects, or that every combination is an object. Until reading this I thought Lewis was in the second camp, but this sounds like object-nihilism, as in Van Inwagen and Merricks.
|
|
13329
|
An 'aggregative' sum is spread in time, and exists whenever a component exists [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the 'aggregative' understanding of a sum, it is spread out in time, so that exists whenever any of its components exists (just as it is located at any time wherever any of its components are located).
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
This works particularly well for something like an ancient forest, which steadily changes its trees. On that view, though, the ship which has had all of its planks replaced will be the identical single sum of planks all the way through. Fine agrees.
|
|
13330
|
An 'compound' sum is not spread in time, and only exists when all the components exists [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
In the 'compound' notion of sum, the mereological sum is spread out only in space, not also in time. For it to exist at a time, all of its components must exist at the time.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], §1)
|
|
A reaction:
It is hard to think of anything to which this applies, apart from for a classical mereologist. Named parts perhaps, like Tom, Dick and Harry. Most things preserve sum identity despite replacement of parts by identical components.
|
|
14244
|
Lewis only uses fusions to create unities, but fusions notoriously flatten our distinctions [Oliver/Smiley on Lewis]
|
|
Full Idea:
Lewis employs mereological fusion as his sole method of making one thing out of many, and fusion is notorious for the way it flattens out and thereby obliterates distinctions.
|
|
From:
comment on David Lewis (Parts of Classes [1991]) by Oliver,A/Smiley,T - What are Sets and What are they For? 3.1
|
|
A reaction:
I take this to be a key point in the discussion of mereology in ontological contexts. As a defender of intrinsic structural essences, I have no use for mereological fusions, and look for a quite different identity for 'wholes'.
|
|
13328
|
Two sorts of whole have 'rigid embodiment' (timeless parts) or 'variable embodiment' (temporary parts) [Fine,K]
|
|
Full Idea:
I develop a version of hylomorphism, in which the theory of 'rigid embodiment' provides an account of the timeless relation of part, and the theory of 'variable embodiment' is an account of the temporary relation. We must accept two new kinds of whole.
|
|
From:
Kit Fine (Things and Their Parts [1999], Intro)
|
|
A reaction:
[see Idea 13326 and Idea 13327 for the two concepts of 'part'] This is easier to take than the two meanings for 'part'. Since Aristotle, everyone has worried about true wholes (atoms, persons?) and looser wholes (houses).
|