Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–35 | Cite as

Is composition identity?

  • Byeong-uk Yi
S.I.: Mereology and Identity
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Say that some things compose something, if the latter is a whole, fusion, or mereological sum of the former. Then the thesis that composition is identity holds that the composition relation is a kind of identity relation, a plural cousin of singular identity. On this thesis, any things that compose a whole (taken together) are identical with the whole. This article argues that the thesis is incoherent. To do so, the article formulates the thesis in a plural language, a symbolic language that includes counterparts of plural constructions of natural languages, and shows that it implies that nothing has a proper part. Then the article argues that the thesis, as its proponents take it, is incoherent because they take it to imply or presuppose that some things have proper parts.

Keywords

Composition Identity Plural logic Mereology Composition as identity Many-one identity Eleatic monism Mereological sum Fusion Part/whole Part-whole triviality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work for this article was supported in part by a SSHRC Insight Grant [Grant No. 435-2014-0592], which is hereby gratefully acknowledged. I presented its previous versions in the Mereology and Identity Workshop and at Nihon University. I would like to thank G. Lando, M. Carrara, and T. Iida for the invitations and the audiences for their comments and discussions. I would also like to thank two anonymous referees for Synthese for helpful comments on the penultimate version, P. Hovda for discussions on topics of this article, and Y. El Gebali and E. Darnell for editorial assistance. The penultimate version of this article was written while I was visiting Hokkaido University as a visiting scholar in 2018. I am grateful to T. Yamada and K. Sano for their invitation and hospitality during the visit. Needless to say, I am solely responsible for any errors and infelicities in this article.

References

  1. Baxter, D. L. M. (1988a). Identity in the loose and popular sense. Mind, 97, 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, D. L. M. (1988b). Many-one identity. Philosophical Papers, 17, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, D. L. M. (1989). Identity through time and discernibility of identicals. Analysis, 49, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boolos, G. (1984). To be is to be a value of a variable (or to be some values of some variables). Journal of Philosophy, 81, 430–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boolos, G. (1985a). Nominalist platonism. Philosophical Review, 94, 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boolos, G. (1985b). Reading the Begriffsschrift. Mind, 94, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotnoir, A. J. (2014). Composition as identity: Framing the debate. In Cotnoir and Baxter (2014), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  8. Cotnoir, A. J., & Baxter, D. (Eds.). (2014). Composition as identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dorr, C. (2005). What we disagree about when we disagree about ontology. In M. Kalderon (Ed.), Fictionalism in metaphysics (pp. 234–286). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Frege, G. (1979). Posthumous writings (H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & F. Kaulbach, Eds.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Hovda, P. (2014). Logical considerations on composition as identity. In Cotnoir and Baxter (2014), pp. 192–210.Google Scholar
  12. Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Linnebo, Ø. (2017). Plural quantification. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/plural-quant/. Accessed 1 May 2018.
  15. McKay, T. (2006). Plural predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Oliver, A., & Smiley, T. (2016). Plural logic (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Plato. (1992). The Theaetetus of Plato (M. J. Levett, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  18. Plato. (1996). Parmenides (M. L. Gill, P. Ryan, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  19. Rayo, A. (2002). Word and objects. Noûs, 36, 436–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sider, T. (2007). Parthood. Philosophical Review, 116, 51–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sider, T. (2013). Against parthood. In K. Bennett & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 8, pp. 237–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sider, T. (2014). Consequences of collapse. In Cotnoir and Baxter (2014), pp. 211–221.Google Scholar
  24. Tarski, A. (1929). Les fondaments de la géométrie des corps. Księga Pamiątkowa Pierwszego Polskiego Zjazdu Matematycznego (supplement to Annales de la Société Polonaise de Mathématique), 7, 29–33. Translated as “Foundations of the geometry of solids” in Tarski (1983): 24–29.Google Scholar
  25. Tarski, A. (1983). Logic, semantics, metamathematics (2nd ed.). Indiana: Hackett.Google Scholar
  26. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Yi, B.-U. (1999a). Is mereology ontologically innocent? Philosophical Studies, 93, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yi, B.-U. (1999b). Is two a property? Journal of Philosophy, 96, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yi, B.-U. (2002). Understanding the many. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Yi, B.-U. (2005). The logic and meaning of plurals. Part I. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 459–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yi, B.-U. (2006). The logic and meaning of plurals. Part II. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35, 239–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yi, B.-U. (2013). The logic of classes of the no-class theory. In N. Griffin & B. Linsky (Eds.), The Palgrave centenary companion to Principia Mathematica (pp. 96–129). New York, NY and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yi, B.-U. (2014). Is there a plural object? In Cotnoir and Baxter (2014), pp. 169–191.Google Scholar
  34. Yi, B.-U. (2016). Quantifiers, determiners, and plural constructions. In M. Carrara, F. Moltmann, & A. Arapinis (Eds.), Unity and plurality: Logic, philosophy, and linguistics (pp. 121–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yi, B.-U. (2018a). White horse paradox and semantics of Chinese nouns. In B. Mou (Ed.), Philosophy of language, Chinese language, Chinese philosophy (pp. 49–68). Leiden, Holland: Brill.Google Scholar
  36. Yi, B.-U. (2018b). Two syllogisms in the Mozi: Chinese logic and language. Review of Symbolic Logic.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020317000302.
  37. Yi, B.-U. (Forthcoming). Plural arithmetic. In B. Kim & R. Ramanujam (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th and 15th Asian logic conferences. Singapore & Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyKyung Hee UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations