Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–24 | Cite as

The polysemy of ‘part’

  • Meg WallaceEmail author
S.I.: Mereology and Identity
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Some philosophers assume that our ordinary parts-whole concepts are intuitive and univocal. Moreover, some assume that mereology—the formal theory of parts-whole relations—adequately captures these intuitive and univocal notions. Lewis (Parts of classes. Blackwell, Oxford, 1991: p. 75), for example, maintains that mereology is “perfectly understood, unproblematic, and certain.” Following his lead, many assume that expressions such as ‘is part of’ are (i) univocal, (ii) topic-neutral, and that (iii) compositional monism is true. This paper explores the rejection of (i)–(iii). I argue that our ordinary parts-whole expressions are polysemous; they have multiple distinct, but related, interpretations or meanings. I canvass several criteria by which to test for polysemy, and apply these criteria to some of our parts-whole terminology. I also examine some philosophical examples involving abstracta and abstract parts, which give us additional reasons to think that our parts-whole expressions are polysemous and topic-specific. Yet if so, then compositional pluralism is true.

Keywords

Parts Mereology Polysemy Composition Compositional pluralism 

Notes

References

  1. Fine, K. (2010). Towards a theory of part. Journal of Philosophy, 107, 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hawthorne, J., & Lepore, E. (2011). On words. The Journal of Philosophy, 108, 447–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hofweber, T. (2009). Ambitious, yet modest, metaphysics. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphyiscs: New essays in the foundations of ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Leonard, H. S., & Goodman, N. (1940). The calculus of individuals and its uses. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. McDaniel, K. (2004). Modal realism with overlap. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(1): 137–152. Reprinted in Lewisian Themes (eds.) Frank Jackson and Graham Priest. Oxford University Press 2004.Google Scholar
  8. McDaniel, K. (2009a). Structure-making. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87(2), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McDaniel, K. (2009b). Ways of being. In D. Chalmers, D. Manley, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McDaniel, K. (2010). Return to the analogy of being. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(3), 688–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McDaniel, K. (2013). Degrees of being. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13(19), 1–18.Google Scholar
  12. McDaniel, K. (2014). Compositional pluralism and composition as identity. In A. J. Cotnoir & D. L. M. Baxter (Eds.), Composition as identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mellor, D. H. (2006). Wholes and parts: The limits of composition. South African Journal of Philosophy, 25, 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paul, L. A. (2002). Logical parts. Nous, 36(4), 578–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sharvy, R. (1980). A more general theory of definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 89(4), 607–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simons, P. (1987). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure., Cambridge studies in linguistics 54 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Thomson, J. J. (1983). Parthood and identity across time. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(4), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Inwagen, P. (1981). The doctrine of arbitrary undetached parts, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 62, 123–137. Reprinted in Material Constitution: A Reader (ed.) Rea, Michael C. (1997) Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, INC.Google Scholar
  21. Van Inwagen, P. (1987). When are objects parts? Philosophical Perspectives, 1: 21–47. Reprinted in Kim et al. 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Varzi, A. (2016) Mereology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/mereology/.
  23. Vienbahn, E., & Vetter, B. (2016). How many meanings for ‘may’? The case for modal polysemy. Philosophers’ Imprint, 16(10), 1–26.Google Scholar
  24. Wallace, M. (2014). Composition as identity, modal parts, and mereological essentialism. In A. J. Cotnoir & D. L. M. Baxter (Eds.), Composition as identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wallace, M. (forthcoming). The lump sum: A theory of modal parts. Philosophical Papers. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.1413 Patterson Office TowerUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations