Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 241–283 | Cite as

Tensed Mereology

  • Paul Hovda


Classical mereology (CM) is usually taken to be formulated in a tenseless language, and is therefore associated with a four-dimensionalist metaphysics. This paper presents three ways one might integrate the core idea of flat plenitude, i.e., that every suitable condition or property has exactly one mereological fusion, with a tensed logical setting. All require a revised notion of mereological fusion. The candidates differ over how they conceive parthood to interact with existence in time, which connects to the distinction between endurance and perdurance. Similar issues arise for the integration of mereology with modality, and much of our discussion applies to this project as well.


Mereology Tense Modality Time Plenitude Endurance Perdurance Mereological sum Mereological fusion Four-dimensionalism Three-dimensionalism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barnes, E., & Williams, R. (2011). A theory of metaphysical indeterminacy. In K. Bennett, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (Vol. 6). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgess, J. (2002). Basic tense logic. In D. Gabbay, & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic, 7 (Vol. 165, pp. 1–42). Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burke, M. B. (1994). Dion and theon: An essentialist solution to an ancient puzzle. Journal of Philosophy, 91(3), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke, M. B. (1994). Preserving the principle of one object to a place: A novel account of the relations among objects, sorts, sortals, and persistence conditions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54(3), 591–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and necessity: A study in semantics and modal logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chisholm, R. (1973). Parts as essential to their wholes. Review of Metaphysics, 26(4), 581–603.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chisholm, R. (1976). Person and object: A metaphysical study. Open Court.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crisp, T. M., & Smith, D. P. (2005). ‘Wholly present’ defined. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71(2), 318–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fine, K. (1994). Compounds and aggregates. Noûs, 28(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fine, K. (2003). The problem of possibilia. In M. J. Loux, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 161–179). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fine, K. (2005). Tense and reality. In Modality and tense. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hawthorne, J. (2006). Three-dimensionalism. In Metaphysical essays. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hovda, P. (2009). What is classical mereology? Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(1), 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hughes, G. E., & Cresswell, M. J. (1996). A new introduction to modal logic. Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnston, M. (1987). Is there a problem about persistence? Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 61, 107–35.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis, D. (1983). Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, D. (1991). Parts of classes. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis, D. (2002). Tensing the copula. Mind, 111(441), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McGee, V. (1997). How we learn mathematical language. Philosophical Review, 106(1), 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mellor, D. H. (1998). Real time II. Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pontow, C., & Schubert, R. (2006). A mathematical analysis of theories of parthood. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 59, 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rea, M. C. (2000) Constitution and kind membership. Philosophical Studies, 97(2), 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism. Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tarski, A. (1983). Foundations of the geometry of solids. In J. Corcoran (Ed.), Logic, semantics, meta-mathematics. Hackett.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomson, J. J. (1998). The statue and the clay. Noûs, 32(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Inwagen, P. (2006). Can mereological sums change their parts? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(12), 614–630.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wasserman, R. (2002). The standard objection to the standard account. Philosophical Studies, 111(3), 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wasserman, R. (2006). The problem of change. Philosophy Compass, 1(1):48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yi, B.-Uk. (2005). The logic and meaning of plurals I. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34(5–6), 459–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yi, B.-Uk. (2006). The logic and meaning of plurals II. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 35(3), 239–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reed CollegePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations