Brutal Composition

Philosophical Studies 92 (3):211 - 249 (1998)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
According to standard, pre-philosophical intuitions, there are many composite objects in the physical universe. There is, for example, my bicycle, which is composed of various parts - wheels, handlebars, molecules, atoms, etc. Recently, a growing body of philosophical literature has concerned itself with questions about the nature of composition.1 The main question that has been raised about composition is, roughly, this: Under what circumstances do some things compose, or add up to, or form, a single object? It turns out that it is surprisingly difficult to give a satisfactory answer to this question that accords with standard, pre-philosophical intuitions about the universe's composite objects. In fact, the three rival views in response to this question that have received the most support in the literature are (i) that there are no objects composed of two or more parts (which means that there are no stars, chairs, humans, or bicycles);2 (ii) that the only objects composed of two or more parts are living organisms (which still means no stars.
Reprint years
2004
PhilPapers/Archive ID
WEABC
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-08-21
Latest version: 1 (2015-11-21)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Mereological Nihilism and Puzzles About Material Objects.Bradley Rettler - forthcoming - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.
Toward a Commonsense Answer to the Special Composition Question.Chad Carmichael - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):475-490.

View all 90 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
1,924 ( #536 of 38,007 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
146 ( #2,136 of 38,007 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.