Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 5, pp 1207–1216 | Cite as

Defending constituent ontology

Article
  • 217 Downloads

Abstract

Constituent ontologies maintain that the properties of an object are either parts or something very much like parts of that object. Recently, such a view has been criticized as (i) leading to a bizarre and problematic form of substance dualism and (ii) implying the existence of impossible objects. After briefly presenting constituent and relational ontologies, I respond to both objections, arguing that constituent ontology does not yield either of these two consequences and so is not shown to be an unacceptable ontological framework.

Keywords

Constituent ontology Parthood Composition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Thanks also to Stephen T. Davis for helpful discussion on some of these issues.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: An opinionated introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, A. (2012). No bare particulars. Philosophical Studies, 158, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brower, J. (2014). Aquinas’s Ontology of the Material World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burkhardt, H., & Dufour, C. (1991). Part/whole I: History. In H. Burkhardt & B. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of metaphysics and ontology 2 (pp. 663–673). Munich: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Connolly, N. (2015). Yes: Bare particulars! Philosophical Studies, 172, 1355–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnston, M. (2002). Parts and principles: False axioms in mereology. Philosophical Topics, 30, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Korman, D. (2007). The naïve conception of material objects: A Defense. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  8. Loux, M. (2005). Aristotle on matter, form, and ontological strategy. Ancient Philosophy, 25, 81–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loux, M. (2006). Aristotle’s constituent ontology. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics 2 (pp. 207–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lowe, E. J. (2012). A neo-Aristotelian substance ontology: Neither relational nor constituent. In T. Tahko (Ed.), Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (pp. 229–248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McDaniel, K. (2001). Tropes and ordinary physical objects. Philosophical Studies, 104, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDaniel, K. (2004). Modal realism with overlap. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Normore, C., & Brown, D. (2014). On bits and pieces in the history of philosophy. In A. Cotnoir & D. Baxter (Eds.), Composition as identity (pp. 24–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Olson, E. (1995). Why I have no hands. Theoria, 61, 182–197.Google Scholar
  15. Olson, E. (1997). The human animal: Personal identity without psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Olson, E. (2007). What are we?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Olson, E. forthcoming. Properties as parts of ordinary objects. In J. Keller (ed.) Being, freedom, and method: themes from van inwagen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pasnau, R. (2010). Form and matter. In R. Pasnau (Ed.), Cambridge history of medieval philosophy (pp. 635–646). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, D. (2009). Mereology without weak supplementation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 505–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Inwagen, P. (1981). The doctrine of arbitrary undetached parts. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. van Inwagen, P. (2004). A theory of properties. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics 1 (pp. 107–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. van Inwagen, P. (2011). Relational vs. constituent ontologies. Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiggins, D. (2001). Sameness and substance renewed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wildman, N. (2015). Load bare-ing particulars. Philosophical Studies, 172, 1419–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophySanta Clara UniversitySanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations