Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–16 | Cite as

An elegant universe

  • Claudio Calosi
S.I.: The Legacy of David Lewis

Abstract

David Lewis famously endorsed Unrestricted Composition. His defense of such a controversial principle builds on the alleged innocence of mereology. This innocence defense has come under different attacks in the last decades. In this paper I pursue another line of defense, that stems from some early remarks by van Inwagen. I argue that Unrestricted Composition leads to a better metaphysics. In particular I provide new arguments for the following claims: Unrestricted Composition entails extensionality of composition, functionality of location and four-dimensionalism in the metaphysics of persistence. Its endorsement yields an impressively coherent and powerful metaphysical picture. This picture shows a universe that might not be innocent but it is certainly elegant.

Keywords

Unrestricted composition Extensionality Functionality  Four-dimensionalism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for this journal for detailed and insightful comments on different drafts of the paper which led to substantive revisions and improvements. Part of this work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, Project Number BSCGI0_157792.

References

  1. Barker, S., & Dowe, P. (2003). Paradoxes of multi-location. Analysis, 63(2), 106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, B., & Cotnoir, A. (Eds.). (2014). Composition as identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Calosi, C. (2014). Extensionality, mulilocation, persistence. Dialectica, 68(1), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Calosi, C., & Costa, D. (2014). Multilocation. Fusions and confusions, Philosophia. doi: 10.1007/s11406-014-9566-2.
  5. Casati, R., & Varzi, A. C. (1999). Parts and places. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cotnoir, A. (2010). Anti-symmetry and non-extensional mereology. The Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 396–405.Google Scholar
  7. Cotnoir, A. (2014). Does universalism entail extensionalism? Noûs. doi: 10.1111/nous.12063.
  8. Donnelly, M. (2010). Parthood and multi-location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 5, 203–243.Google Scholar
  9. Elder, C. (2008). Against universal mereological composition. Dialectica, 62(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fine, K. (2003). The non-identity of a material thing and its matter. Mind, 112, 195–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilmore, C. (2006). Where in the relativistic world are we? Philosophical Perspectives Metaphysics, 20, 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilmore, C. (2013). Location and mereology. At: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/location-mereology/
  13. Gilmore, C. (Forthcoming). Quasi-supplementation, plenitudinous coincidentalism, and gunk. Substance: New Essays, Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Giordani, A., & Costa, D. (2013). From times to worlds and back again: A trascendentist theory of persistence. Thought, 2, 210–220.Google Scholar
  15. Hawthorne, J. (2008). Three-dimensionalism vs four-dimensionalism. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 263–282). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hovda, P. (2009). What is classical mereology. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hudson, H. (2001). A materialist metaphysics of the human person. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kleinschmidt, S. (2011). Multilocation and mereology. Philosophical Perspectives, 25(1), 253–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koslicki, K. (2003). The crooked path from vagueness to four-dimensionalism. Philosophical Studies, 114, 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, D. (1986). The plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. McDaniel, K. (2003). No paradox of multi-location. Analysis, 63(4), 309–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parsons, J. (2000). Must a four-dimensionalist believe in temporal parts. The Monist, 83(3), 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parsons, J. (2007). Theories of location. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 3, 201–232.Google Scholar
  26. Rea, M. (1998). In defense of mereological universalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rea, M. (2010). Universalism and extensionalism. A reply to Varzi. Analysis, 70, 490–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sattig, T. (2006). The language and reality of time. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simons, P. (1987). Parts. A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  31. Simons, P. (2006). Real wholes, real parts. Mereology without algebra. The Journal of Philosophy, 103(12), 597–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Uzquiano, G. (2011). Mereological Harmony, In K. Bennet, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 6, pp. 199–224).Google Scholar
  33. Van Cleve, J. (2008). The moon and the sixpence: A defense of mereological universalism. In T. Sider, J. Hawthorne, & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in metaphysics (pp. 321–340). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Van Inwagen, P. (1994). Composition as Identity. In J. E. Tomberlin (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives (Vol. 8, pp. 207–220). Logic and language. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  36. Varzi, A. (2008). The Extensionality of parthood and composition. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 108–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Varzi, A. (2009). Universalism entails extensionalism. Analysis, 69, 599–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varzi, A. (2014). Mereology, At: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/.
  39. Williamson, T. (2013). Modal logic as metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Neuchatel, Institute of PhilosophyNeuchatelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations