The mereology of structural universals

• Authors: Forrest Peter
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper explores the mereology of structural universals, using the structural richness of a non-classical mereology without unique fusions. The paper focuses on a problem posed by David Lewis, who using the example of methane, and assuming classical mereology, argues against any purely mereological theory of structural universals. The problem is that being a methane molecule would have to contain being a hydrogen atom four times over, but mereology does not have the concept of the same part occurring several times. This paper takes up the challenge by providing mereological analysis of three operations sufficient for a theory of structural universals: (1) Reflexive binding, i.e. identifying two of the places of a universal; (2) Existential binding, i.e. the language-independent correlate of an existential quantification; and (3) Conjunction.

Keywords

EN

mereology; conjunction; existential binding; David Lewis; reflexive binding; structural universals; unique fusion

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)
• Journal: Logic and Logical Philosophy
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 25
• Issue: 3 Mereology and Beyond (II)
• Pages: 259-283

Dates

online

2015-05-27

Contributors

author

Forrest Peter

• School of Humanities, University of New England, Australia

References

• Armstrong, D., Universals and Scientific Realism, Vol. II. A Theory of Universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
• Bigelow, J., “Towards structural universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64 (1986): 94–96. DOI:10.1080/00048408612342291
• Caplan, B., Ch. Tillman, and P. Reeder, “Parts of singletons”, Journal of Philosophy, 107 (2010): 501–533.
• Cotnoir, A.J., “Anti-symmetry and non-extensional mereology”, The Philosophical Quarterly, 60 (2010): 396–405. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2009.649.x
• Cotnoir, A.J., and A. Bacon, “Non-wellfounded mereology”, Review of Symbolic Logic, 5 (2012): 187–204. DOI:10.1017/S1755020311000293
• Forrest, P., The Necessary Structure of the All-pervading Aether: Discrete or Continuous? Simple or Symmetric?, Ontos, 2012. DOI:10.1515/9783110325928
• Forrest, P., “Exemplification and parthood”, Axiomathes, 23 (2013): 323–341. DOI:10.1007/s10516-013-9215-6
• Franklin, J., An Aristotelian Realist Philosophy of Mathematics: Mathematics as the Science of Quantity and Structure, Palgrave MacMillan, 2014. DOI:10.1057/9781137400734
• Lewis, D., “Against structural universals”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 64 (1986): 25–46. DOI:10.1080/00048408612342211
• Lewis, D., Parts of Classes, Blackwell, 1991.
• Obojska, L., “Some remarks on supplementation principles in the absence of antisymmetry”, Review of Symbolic Logic, 6 (2013): 343–347. DOI:10.1017/S1755020312000330
• Sober, E., “Why logically equivalent predicates may pick out different properties”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 19 (1982): 183–189.
• Thompson, J.J., “The statue and the clay”, Nous, 32 (1998): 149–173. DOI:10.1111/0029-4624.00094
• Tillman, Ch., and G. Fowler, “Propositions and parthood: The universe and antisymmetry”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 90 (2012): 525–539. DOI:10.1080/00048402.2011.611812
• Varzi, A., “The extensionality of parthood and composition”, The Philosophical Quarterly, 58 (2008): 108–133. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.542.x

Identifiers

DOI

10.12775/LLP.2015.012