, Volume 162, Issue 1, pp 31–35 | Cite as

Could there be exactly two things?



Many philosophers think that, necessarily, any material objects have a fusion (let’s call that doctrine “Universalism”). In this paper I point out a couple of strange consequences of Universalism and related doctrines, and suggest that they are strange enough to constitute a powerful argument against those views.


Ontology Universalism Mereology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chisholm, R. (1973). The problem of the criterion. Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Goodman, N. (1956). A world of individuals. In I. M. Bochenski, A. Church, & N. Goodman (Eds.), The problem of universals. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  3. Lewis D. (1986). On the purality of worlds. BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  4. Lewis D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  5. Markosian N. (1998). Brutal composition. Philosophical Studies 92: 211–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Merricks T. (2005). Composition and vagueness. Mind 114(455): 615–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Simons P. (1987). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford, ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  8. Uzquiano G. (2006). The price of universality. Philosophical Studies 129(1): 137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Van Cleve J. (1986). Mereological essentialism, mereological conjunctivism, and identity through time. Midwest Studies in Philosophy XI: 141–156Google Scholar
  10. van Inwagen P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations