Vol. 43 Nro. 2 (2023)
Articles

Is a Whole Prior to its Parts?

PDF (Español (España))
  • Angelo Briones
Angelo Briones
IIF-SADAF-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.e543

Published 2023-11-01

Keywords

  • Mereología,
  • Dependencia de identidad,
  • Criterio de identidad,
  • Prioridad ontológica
  • Mereology,
  • Identity dependence,
  • Identity criterion,
  • Ontological priority
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The main objective of the present research is to expose a problem of coherence in which the theories according to which there are mereological wholes that are prior to the parts that compose them incur. The central argument consists in showing that the dependence of identity that the parts have with the wholes they compose, which defines the ontological priority of the whole with respect to its parts, implies a principle of identity from which it can be established that, at the same time, the wholes depend for their identity on their parts, so that the parts are ontologically prior to the whole they compose. Thus, the theory collapses in a vicious circle that threatens the very notion of identity dependence. For this reason, the theory cannot coherently sustain the thesis according to which the wholes are ontologically prior to their parts.

PDF (Español (España))

References

  1. Alvarado, J. T. (2015). Dos teorías nucleares de la sustancia. Cuadernos de Filosofía, 33, 29-51. http://revistas.udec.cl/index.php/cuadernos_de_filosofia/article/view/803
  2. Alvarado, J. T. (2020). A metaphysics of platonic universals and their instantiations: Shadow of universals. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53393-9
  3. Aristóteles (1998). Metafísica. Gredos.
  4. Bennett, K. (2017). Making things up. Oxford University Press.
  5. Bird, A., & Tobin, E. (2022). Natural kinds. En E. Zalta (Ed), The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/natural-kinds/
  6. Canavotto, I., & Giordani, A. (2020). An extensional mereology for structured entities. Erkenntnis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00305-5
  7. Correia, F. (2008). Ontological dependence. Philosophy Compass, 3(5), 1013-1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00170.x
  8. Fine, K. (1994). Essence and modality: The second Philosophical Perspectives lecture. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 1-16 https://doi.org/10.2307/2214160
  9. Fine, K. (1995). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: New series, 95(1), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/95.1.269
  10. Fine, K. (1999). Things and their parts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 61-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00004
  11. Fine, K. (2010) Toward a theory of part. The Journal of Philosophy, 107(11), 559-589. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20101071139
  12. Gorman, M. (2012). On substantial independence: A reply to Patrick Toner. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in Analytic Tradition, 159(2), 293-297. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23262290
  13. Gruszczyński, R. & Varzi, A. C. (2015) Mereology then and now. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 24(4), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2015.024
  14. Harte, V. (2002). Plato on parts and wholes. Oxford University Press.
  15. Inman, R. (2018). Substance and the fundamentality of the familiar. Routledge.
  16. Johnston, M. (2002). Parts and principles: False axioms in mereology. Philosophical Topics, 30(1), 129-166. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics20023017
  17. Kim, J. (2003). The non-reductivist’s troubles with mental causation. En J. Heil & A. Mele (Eds.), Mental causation (pp. 189-210). Oxford University Press.
  18. Koons, R. (2014). Staunch vs fains-hearted hylomorphism: Towards and Aristotelian account of composition. Res Philosophica, 91(2), 151-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.2.1
  19. Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford University Press.
  20. Koslicki, K. (2013). Substance, independence and unity. En E. Fesser (Ed.), Aristotle on method and metaphysics (pp. 169-195). Palgrave Macmillan.
  21. Lando, G. (2017). Mereology: A philosophical introduction. Bloomsbury.
  22. Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Basil Blackwell.
  23. Llored, J. P., & Harré, R. (2014). Developing the mereology of chemistry. En C. Calosi & P. Graziani (Eds.), Mereology and the sciences (pp. 189-212). Springer.
  24. Lowe, E. J. (2001). The possibility of metaphysics: Substance, identity and time. Oxford University Press.
  25. Lowe, E. J. (2007). Sortals and the individuation of objects. Mind & Language, 22(5), 514-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00318.x
  26. Lowe, E. J. (2009). More kinds of being. Wiley-Blackwell.
  27. Lowe, E. J. (2012). Asymmetrical dependence in individuation. En F. Correia & B. Schnieder (Eds.). Metaphysical grounding understanding the structure of reality (214-233). Cambridge University Press.
  28. Lowe, E. J., & Tahko, T. E. (2020). Ontological dependence. En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/
  29. Marmodoro, A. (2013). Aristotle’s hylomorphism, without reconditioning. Philosophical Inquiry, 37(1/2), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.5840/philinquiry2013371/28
  30. McDaniel, K. (2004). Modal realism with overlap. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82(1) 137-152.
  31. McDaniel, K. (2010). Parts and wholes. Philosophy Compass, 5(5), 412-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00238.x
  32. Meirav, A. (2003). Wholes, sums and unities. Springer.
  33. Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 3-36.
  34. Sattig, T. (2015). The double lives of objects: An essay in the metaphysics of the ordinary world. Oxford University Press.
  35. Sattig, T. (2021a). Material objects. Cambridge University Press.
  36. Sattig, T. (2021b). Parts, slot, ground: Foundations for neo-aristotelian mereology. Synthese, 198, 2735- 2749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02141-9
  37. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. En D. J. Chalmers, D. Manley & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347-383). Oxford University Press.
  38. Schaffer, J. (2018). Monism En E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/monism/
  39. Sider, T. (2013). Against parthood. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 8, 237-293.
  40. Simons, P. (1998). A farewell to substance: A diferentiated leave-taking. Ratio (New Series), 11(3), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00069
  41. Simons, P. (2003). Parts. Oxford University Press.
  42. Simons, P. (2006). Real wholes, real parts: Mereology without algebra. The Journal of Philosophy, 113(12), 597-613. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2006103122
  43. Toner, P. (2010). On substance. American Catholic Philosophical Quaterly, 84(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.5840/acpq20108412
  44. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Cornell University Press.
  45. Varzi, A. (2000). Mereological commitments. Dialectica, 54(4), 283-305 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.2000.tb00286.x
  46. Varzi, A. (2009). Universalism entails extensionalism. Analysis, 69, 599-604. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anp102
  47. Varzi, A. (2010). On the boundary between material and formal ontology. En B. Smith, R. Mizoguchi & S. Nakagawa (Eds.), Interdisciplinary ontology, Vol 3: Proceedings of the third interdisciplinary ontology meeting (pp. 3-8). Keio University Press.
  48. Wiggins, D. (2003). Sameness and substance renewed. Cambridge University Press.