Aspects of the Mereology of Artifacts

Part of the Nijhoff International Philosophy Series book series (NIPS, volume 53)


More ingenuity and creative energy is invested in the design, production and application of artifacts than in any field of human endeavour. We are surrounded by millions of artifacts, we have commerce with them every day, many of us more than with other human beings. The level of civilisation is literally measured by the kind of artifacts of which a culture is capable, from the first palaeolithic hand axe to the space shuttle and the supercomputer. It is all the more surprising then that there has been little interest in the general ontological status of artifacts. Perhaps it is assumed that there is little to say beyond the bare dictionary definition, or perhaps that the very variety and heterogeneity of artifacts inhibits such a general study. They lack as a class that simplicity and amenity to formal treatment that attracts the formally inclined, and largely fail to give rise to the kinds of tingling intellectual puzzles that customarily attract philosophers.


General Ontology Helical Gear Generic Template Assembly Component Butterfly Valve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Casati, R. and Varzi, A.C. 1994: Holes and Other Superficialities, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Dipert, R.R. 1993: Artifacts, Art Works, and Agency, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA. (This book, though we do not agree with all its theses, is an immeasurable improvement over what has existed before, excepting the two works of Ingarden cited above. We were heartened by Dipert’s recognition of the importance of intention to artifact production, of tools and instruments, the issue of group agency, and the need for a metaphysics of artifacts in general. While most philosophers will probably read this book for what it says about works of art, we think the really important advances are in its earlier chapters on artifacts in general. Since reading Dipert’s book, we have modified our earlier outline for our paper, eliminating a summary of issues pertaining to artifacts in general in favor of a reference to this book, as Dipert covers this subject in greater detail than we would have been able to here.)Google Scholar
  3. Hilpinen, R. 1993a: “Authors and Artifacts”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 93, 155–178.Google Scholar
  4. Hilpinen, R. 1993b: “On Artifacts and Works of Art”, Theoria. Google Scholar
  5. Ingarden, R. 1973: The Literary Work of Art: With an Appendix on the Functions of Language in the Theater. Translated by George G. Grabowicz. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL. (Originally published in German as Das literarische Kunstwerk: Eine Untersuchung aus dem Grenzgebiet der Ontologie, Logik, und Literaristeratur-wissenschaft, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Halle an der Saale, 1931.)Google Scholar
  6. Ingarden, R. 1989: Ontology of the Work of Art, Translated by Raymond Meyer with John T. Goldthwait. Ohio University Press, Athens, OH. (Originally published in German as Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tubingen, 1933.)Google Scholar
  7. Sanford, D.H. 1993: “The Problem of the Many, Many Composition Questions, and Naive Mereology”, Nous, Volume 27, 219–228.Google Scholar
  8. Simons, P.M. 1987: Parts, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations