“No Composition, No Problem: Ordinary Objects as Arrangements”

6Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

On the grounds that there are no mereological composites, mereological nihilists deny that ordinary objects (such as tables and chairs) exist. Even if nihilism is true, however, I argue that tables and chairs exist anyway: for I deny that ordinary objects are (identical to) the mereological sums the nihilist rejects. Instead, I argue, ordinary objects have a different nature; they are arrangements, not composites. My argument runs as follows. First, I defend realism about ordinary objects by showing that there is something that plays the role of ordinary objects in perception and discourse, and that ordinary objects are (identical to) whatever plays this role. Next, I argue that it is arrangements that play this role. It follows that ordinary objects exist- even if mereological nihilism is true.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Goldwater, J. P. B. (2015). “No Composition, No Problem: Ordinary Objects as Arrangements.” Philosophia (United States), 43(2), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-015-9593-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free