A Puzzle Concerning Boundaries, Dependence, and Parthood

Smid, Jeroen

doi:10.1111/phib.12061

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The boundary is part of the whole [by Boundaries are Parts ]. By Part‐Whole Dependence , it will follow that the whole depends on its boundary (among other things), while according to Boundary‐Whole Dependence , the boundary depends on the whole (Smid , 169, slightly modified. )…”

Section: The Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Solving a Mereological Puzzle

Calosi

2018

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an interesting puzzle about the interaction between mereology, topology, and dependence. It is not only interesting in and on itself, but also reveals subtleties about the aforementioned interaction that have gone unnoticed. The puzzle has it that the following plausible claims are jointly inconsistent: (i) wholes depend on their parts; (ii) boundaries are parts; (iii) boundaries depend on the whole they are part of. In the paper, I first argue that claims (i)–(iii) are not as a matter of fact inconsitent insofar as further assumptions are needed to get the puzzle off the ground. I consider several such assumptions, some more plausible than others. Though I do not take any definite stance as to whether the plusibility of the assumptions considered trump that of claims (i)–(iii), I set forth a suggestion to replace (iii) with something similar yet interestingly different.

show abstract

Section: The Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This violates Asymmetry of dependence. Smid () makes a substantive case for the plausibility of all the claims above. In fact all of them have been thoroughly defended in the literature .…”

Section: The Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

Solving a Mereological Puzzle

Calosi

2018

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Universalism doesn’t entail extensionalism

Loss

2022

Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the literature on mereology it is often accepted that mereological universalism entails extensionalism. More precisely, many accept that, if parthood is assumed to be a partial order (and, thus, the relevant theory of parthood is taken to be at least as strong as ‘core mereology’), the thesis that every plurality of entities has a mereological fusion entails the thesis that different composite entities have different proper parts. Central to this idea is the principle known as ‘Weak Supplementation’ which many take to impose an important constraint on the relation of proper parthood. In this paper I argue that this claim is false as the principle that I will call ‘Minimal Supplementation’ appears to be capable of doing all the work done by Weak Supplementation but without entailing extensionalism if conjoined with universalism and core mereology.

show abstract

Grounding and boundaries

Sciacca

2023

Philosophical Books

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses a recent puzzle concerning the notions of boundary parthood and dependence, and offers a new solution. The puzzle was originally presented by Jeroen Smid and successively elaborated upon by Claudio Calosi. I first reformulate some of the troublesome premises. Particularly, whereas Smid and Calosi discuss the puzzle in terms of an underspecified notion of dependence, I propose to construe it in terms of the notion of grounding. In this manner, the dependence relation inherently carries an asymmetry, and we can effectively utilize its four places. The solution I advance precisely takes advantage of this feature of dependence. My proposal avoids the contradiction while still respecting the intuitions driving the original premises. It is also fully compatible with boundaries being only generically dependent on their wholes.

show abstract

A Puzzle Concerning Boundaries, Dependence, and Parthood

Cited by 5 publications

References 9 publications

Solving a Mereological Puzzle

Solving a Mereological Puzzle

Universalism doesn’t entail extensionalism

Grounding and boundaries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About