The ontological parsimony of mereology

Smid, Jeroen

doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0468-3

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere, I (Smid, ) argued along similar lines that, from a mereological perspective, commitment to an object entails commitment to its parts because EP (a version of [No Other]) tells us that the whole would not be that particular whole were it not for the parts it has. Treating the parts as extra ontological commitments is arguably superfluous once the whole is mentioned: The commitment to that particular whole entails commitment to its parts.…”

Section: Mereology and “Nothing Over And Above”mentioning

confidence: 99%

What does “nothing over and above its parts” actually mean?

Smid

2017

Philosophy Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some philosophers say that a whole is "nothing over and above" its parts. Most also take general extensilonal mereology to be treating wholes as "nothing over and above" their parts. It is not always clear, however, what exactly is meant by the phrase "nothing over and above." Nor is it obvious why the phrase is associated with mereology, and what purpose it serves there. In the words of Peter Van Inwagen (1994, 210): "This slippery phrase has had a lot of employment in philosophy, but what it means is never explained by its employers." This paper sheds light on the various senses in which one might hold that a whole is "nothing over and above" its parts, and on how these senses are related both to each other and to mereology. | INTRODUCTIONThis paper explicates different senses of "nothing over and above its parts" and aims to determine which of these, if any, accurately describes the way general extensional mereology (which I shall now refer to simply as "mereology") characterizes parts and wholes. I hope to remove some of the confusion concerning the phrase and aid debates on (mereological) composition and the so-called Composition as Identity debate.The plan is as follows. First, I shall present some quotations containing the phrase "nothing over and above" (Section 2). This will allow me to formulate different senses, or meanings, of "nothing over and above" explicitly.Then, in Section 3, I will examine interrelations among the various senses of "nothing over and above" that have been identified. Following this, in Section 4, I will relate those senses to mereology. I shall conclude that mereology does give reason to think of a whole as "nothing over and above its parts"-at least, in some senses of the phrase. | EXAMPLES OF " NOTHING OVER AND ABOVE"The phrase "nothing over and above" is often used in discussions of mereology (and cats):The fusion is nothing over and above the cats that compose it. (Lewis, 1991, 81) A cat-fusion is "nothing over and above" the cats that compose it. (Varzi, 2014a, 48-referring to the above quote.)But there are different senses of this phrase, even within mereology. To show this, I need to present some passages from philosophical work containing the phrase. Many deployments of "nothing over and above" appear to admit of more than one reading. This means that my interpretations of what various authors seem to mean when they use the phrase can be challenged. Ironically enough, it also shows that it is vital to distinguish various senses of "nothing over and above," as I set out to do in this paper.As a first example, let us consider Achille Varzi's use of the phrase in discussing the conditions of the existence of a whole:Any fusion of a class of things is itself an existing thing. Thus, in particular, a perdurantist universalist draws no ontological distinction between homogeneous, temporally continuous wholes and scattered fusions of arbitrarily selected temporal parts. If the parts exist, they constitute a whole, for the whole is nothing over and above the parts. (Varzi, 20...

show abstract

Section: Mereology and “Nothing Over And Above”mentioning

confidence: 99%

What does “nothing over and above its parts” actually mean?

Smid

2017

Philosophy Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Varzi 2000, 285) The Minimalist View tells us that one can either list Tibbles the cat or all the parts of Tibbles (and either list would be a correct one) but one should not put both the cat and its parts on the list. 28 27 For discussion, see Hawley (2014), Varzi (2000Smid (2015). 28 Franz Brentano may have had something similar in mind: '[I]t would be wrong to suppose that the two parts of a thing taken together constitute an additional third thing.…”

Section: Why a Mereologist May Want To Define '='mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Identity’ as a mereological term

Smid

2016

Synthese

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mereological predicate 'is part of' can be used to define the predicate 'is identical with'. I argue that this entails that mereological theories can be ideologically simpler than nihilistic theories that do not use the notion of parthood-contrary to what has been argued by Ted Sider. Moreover, if one accepts an extensional mereology, there are good philosophical reasons apart from ideological simplicity to give a mereological definition of identity.

show abstract

“…The argument for nihilism from the theoretical unification conferred by nihilism does not cite the relative ontological parsimony of nihilism as a reason to think that nihilism is true. What's more, while several objections have been raised against arguments for nihilism from nihilism's ontological parsimony (see, e.g., Schaffer , ; Smid ), such objections do nothing to undermine the argument for nihilism from the theoretical unification conferred by nihilism.…”

Section: Nihilism and Theoretical Unification (I)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So, tables, chairs, dogs, tennis balls, and so on, don't exist, under the assumption that these things are composite objects if they exist. Recent debates over mereological nihilism have largely turned on the alleged relative theoretical simplicity of nihilism versus its rivals (see, e.g., Dorr ; Schaffer ; Horgan and Potrč 2008: Ch.7; Bennett ; Cowling , ; Kriegel ; Sider ; Woodard ; Hawley ; Tallant ; Korman ; Smid ). Nihilism's relative theoretical simplicity is important because it gives us some reason to think that nihilism is true .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mereological Nihilism and Theoretical Unification

Brenner

2015

Philosophical Books

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ontological parsimony of mereology

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

What does “nothing over and above its parts” actually mean?

What does “nothing over and above its parts” actually mean?

‘Identity’ as a mereological term

Mereological Nihilism and Theoretical Unification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About