Two Finean Arguments Reconsidered

digital

Article

Magazine

RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEO-SCOLASTICA

Fascicle

RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEO-SCOLASTICA - 2022 - 1

Title

Two Finean Arguments Reconsidered

Author

Marco Larotonda

Publisher

Vita e Pensiero

Format

Article |

Pdf

Online from

05-2022

Doi

10.26350/001050_000313

Issn

0035-6247 (print) | 1827-7926 (digital)

Write a comment for this product

€ 6.00

Ebook format Pdf readable on these devices:

Computer
with Software:
- Adobe PDF Reader
Android
iPhone/Ipad
with App:
- Adobe PDF Reader
E-Book Reader
Ibs Tolino
Kobo

Description Readers' comments

According to Classical Extensional Mereology, ordinary objects are unstructured. But our intuitions guide us in the opposite direction; ordinary objects (such as sandwiches, tables, and chairs) have their parts arranged in a precise way. Some philosophers take this thought as a decisive reason to find Classical Extensional Mereology inadequate to account for ordinary objects. Indeed, the two arguments (the Aggregative Objection and the Monster Objection) that Kit Fine presents in his paper Things and Their Parts, purports to show that Classical Extensional Mereology does not correctly represent the conditions of existence of ordinary objects. In this paper, I provide a detailed critique of the Finean objections in order to argue that we can continue to employ Classical Extensional Mereology for the analysis of ordinary objects.