Natural Mereology and Classical Mereology

Abstract

Two apparently opposing philosophical views on mereological issues are contrasted, and a device is suggesting for assessing the extent to which their difference is terminological, rather than substantial. According to the view associated with Classical Mereology, the part-whole relation is guaranteed, a priori, to have a particular and neat algebraic structure. According to a more naturalistic view, the global structure of the part-whole relation turns instead on how things in nature happen to be organized. The main technical idea of the paper is that there is a non-arbitrary way to transform any relation into one that obeys the axioms of Classical Mereology. The main philosophical idea is that if we apply the transformation to the ontology and structure the naturalistic philosopher believes in, the resulting Classical relational structure may be ontologically acceptable to the naturalistic philosopher, and the relation that relates the objects in the structure might be sufficiently “natural” that the naturalistic philosopher ought to acknowledge that it deserves the label “part-whole relation.” Thus, in the most dramatic case, the naturalistic philosopher might hold a view that turns out to be merely terminologically different from that of the Classical Mereologist. Sets, or pluralities, of the original naturalistic objects will typically be “added,” by the transformation, to the original ontology to which it is applied. This raises questions, only briefly addressed here, about the place of such entities in the study of part-whole relations.