Is Weak Supplementation analytic?

Cotnoir, Aaron J.

doi:10.1007/s11229-018-02066-9

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…See (Whitehead, 1929, pp. 345-353), (Clarke, 1981), (Simons, 1987, p. 98), (Casati and Varzi, 1999, p. 79) and (Cotnoir, 2018). not overlap the latter: 17 7.…”

Section: Extensional Mereologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See especially (Cotnoir, 2010, p. 398), (Parsons, 2014, pp. 6-7), (Cotnoir, 2018) and (Pietruszczak, 2020, sections 1.6 and 2.2.1.2).…”

Section: Extensional Mereologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 See (Pietruszczak, 2018, p. 155, Lemma 5.2(iii)); the first Polish version of this book was published in 2000. 16 See (Cotnoir, 2016(Cotnoir, , 2018Parsons, draft). However, note that if proper parthood is defined as non-mutual parthood instead of non-identical parthood, then the corresponding version of weak supplementation is innocuous even according to the mutual parts view.…”

Section: Extensional Mereologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Extension and Self-Connection

Blumson

Singh²

2021

LLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If two self-connected individuals are connected, it follows in classical extensional mereotopology that the sum of those individuals is selfconnected too. Since mainland Europe and mainland Asia, for example, are both self-connected and connected to each other, mainland Eurasia is also self-connected. In contrast, in non-extensional mereotopologies, two individuals may have more than one sum, in which case it does not follow from their being self-connected and connected that the sum of those individuals is self-connected too. Nevertheless, one would still expect it to follow that a sum of connected self-connected individuals is self-connected too. In this paper, we present some surprising countermodels which show that this conjecture is incorrect.

show abstract

“…See (Whitehead, 1929, pp. 345-353), (Clarke, 1981), (Simons, 1987, p. 98), (Casati and Varzi, 1999, p. 79) and (Cotnoir, 2018). not overlap the latter: 17 7.…”

Section: Extensional Mereologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See especially (Cotnoir, 2010, p. 398), (Parsons, 2014, pp. 6-7), (Cotnoir, 2018) and (Pietruszczak, 2020, sections 1.6 and 2.2.1.2).…”

Section: Extensional Mereologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Extensional Mereologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Extension and Self-Connection

Blumson

Singh²

2021

LLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… I am here presupposing the following definition of proper parthood (PP) in terms of part (P): x PP y ≡ def x P y ∧ x ≠ y In the literature about non‐extensional mereologies there are other definitions of proper parthood which are not relevant in this context (see Cotnoir, for an analysis). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the literature about non‐extensional mereologies there are other definitions of proper parthood which are not relevant in this context (see Cotnoir, for an analysis).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expansionism and Mereological Universalism

Lando

2020

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mereological universalists, according to whom every plurality of entities has a fusion, usually claim that most quantifications are restricted to ordinary entities. However, there is no evidence that our usual quantifications over ordinary objects are restricted. In this article I explore an alternative way of reconciling Mereological Universalism with our usual quantifications. I resort to a modest form of ontological expansionism and to the so-called interpretational modalities. Quantifications over ordinary objects are the initial stages of the expansion. From these initial stages, expansions can proceed upwards (fusions of entities in the domain of quantification are added), downwards (parts of entities in the domain are added), and sidewards (entities which are mereologically disjoint from the entities in the domain are added). These expansions are driven by a variety of epistemic and pragmatic reasons and raise different kinds of problems. At each stage, a modalized version of Mereological Universalism is true. By contrast, only at some especially rich stages, standard, non-modalized Mereological Universalism is true as well. Among these especially rich stages, there is a final, metaphysically pre-eminent stage of mereological plenitude. In the last part of the article I discuss some problems and limitations of expansionism.

show abstract

An Extensional Mereology for Structured Entities

Canavotto

Giordani

2020

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present an extensional system of mereology suitable to account for the intuitive distinction between heaplike and non-heaplike entities. Since the need to capture this distinction has been a key motivation for non-extensional mereologies, we first assess the main non-extensional systems advanced in the last years and highlight some mereological and metaphysical difficulties they involve. We then advance a novel program, according to which the distinction between heaplike and non-heaplike entities can be accounted for by bringing together the parthood relation characterized by classical extensional mereology and an Aristotelian extensional notion of potential parthood. Thus, while rejecting the thesis of mereological monism, our proposal is consistent with the thesis of mereological extensionalism. We show that within this framework it is possible to characterize the above-mentioned distinction, to define the relation of material constitution, and to capture three fundamental standpoints in metaphysics.

show abstract

Is Weak Supplementation analytic?

Cited by 12 publications

References 79 publications

Extension and Self-Connection

Extension and Self-Connection

Expansionism and Mereological Universalism

An Extensional Mereology for Structured Entities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About