Mereology. Varzi, A. C. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2016 edition, 2016.
Mereology [link]Paper  abstract   bibtex   
Mereology (from the Greek μερος,‘part’) is the theory of parthood relations: of therelations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole.[1] Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy,beginning with the Presocratics and continuing throughout the writingsof Plato (especially the Parmenides and theTheaetetus), Aristotle (especially the Metaphysics,but also the Physics, the Topics, and Departibus animalium), and Boethius (especially DeDivisione and In Ciceronis Topica). Mereology occupies aprominent role also in the writings of medieval ontologists andscholastic philosophers such as Garland the Computist, Peter Abelard,Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, John Duns Scotus, Walter Burley, Williamof Ockham, and Jean Buridan, as well as in Jungius's LogicaHamburgensis (1638), Leibniz's Dissertatio de artecombinatoria (1666) and Monadology (1714), and Kant'searly writings (the Gedanken of 1747 and the Monadologiaphysica of 1756). As a formal theory of parthood relations,however, mereology made its way into our times mainly through the workof Franz Brentano and of his pupils, especially Husserl's thirdLogical Investigation (1901). The latter may rightly beconsidered the first attempt at a thorough formulation of a theory,though in a format that makes it difficult to disentangle the analysisof mereological concepts from that of other ontologically relevantnotions (such as the relation of ontological dependence).[2] It is not until Leśniewski's Foundations of the GeneralTheory of Sets (1916) and his Foundations of Mathematics(1927–1931) that a pure theory of part-relations was given anexact formulation.[3] And because Leśniewski's work was largely inaccessible tonon-speakers of Polish, it is only with the publication of Leonard andGoodman's The Calculus of Individuals (1940), partly underthe influence of Whitehead, that mereology has become a chapter ofcentral interest for modern ontologists and metaphysicians.[4], In the following we focus mostly on contemporary formulations ofmereology as they grew out of these recenttheories—Leśniewski's and Leonard and Goodman's. Indeed,although such theories come in different logical guises, they aresufficiently similar to be recognized as a common basis for mostsubsequent developments. To properly assess the relative strengths andweaknesses, however, it will be convenient to proceed in steps. Firstwe consider some core mereological notions and principles. Then weproceed to an examination of the stronger theories that can be erectedon that basis.
@incollection{varzi_mereology_2016,
	edition = {Winter 2016},
	title = {Mereology},
	url = {https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/mereology/},
	abstract = {Mereology (from the Greek μερος,‘part’) is the theory of parthood relations: of therelations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole.[1] Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy,beginning with the Presocratics and continuing throughout the writingsof Plato (especially the Parmenides and theTheaetetus), Aristotle (especially the Metaphysics,but also the Physics, the Topics, and Departibus animalium), and Boethius (especially DeDivisione and In Ciceronis Topica). Mereology occupies aprominent role also in the writings of medieval ontologists andscholastic philosophers such as Garland the Computist, Peter Abelard,Thomas Aquinas, Raymond Lull, John Duns Scotus, Walter Burley, Williamof Ockham, and Jean Buridan, as well as in Jungius's LogicaHamburgensis (1638), Leibniz's Dissertatio de artecombinatoria (1666) and Monadology (1714), and Kant'searly writings (the Gedanken of 1747 and the Monadologiaphysica of 1756). As a formal theory of parthood relations,however, mereology made its way into our times mainly through the workof Franz Brentano and of his pupils, especially Husserl's thirdLogical Investigation (1901). The latter may rightly beconsidered the first attempt at a thorough formulation of a theory,though in a format that makes it difficult to disentangle the analysisof mereological concepts from that of other ontologically relevantnotions (such as the relation of ontological dependence).[2] It is not until Leśniewski's Foundations of the GeneralTheory of Sets (1916) and his Foundations of Mathematics(1927–1931) that a pure theory of part-relations was given anexact formulation.[3] And because Leśniewski's work was largely inaccessible tonon-speakers of Polish, it is only with the publication of Leonard andGoodman's The Calculus of Individuals (1940), partly underthe influence of Whitehead, that mereology has become a chapter ofcentral interest for modern ontologists and metaphysicians.[4], In the following we focus mostly on contemporary formulations ofmereology as they grew out of these recenttheories—Leśniewski's and Leonard and Goodman's. Indeed,although such theories come in different logical guises, they aresufficiently similar to be recognized as a common basis for mostsubsequent developments. To properly assess the relative strengths andweaknesses, however, it will be convenient to proceed in steps. Firstwe consider some core mereological notions and principles. Then weproceed to an examination of the stronger theories that can be erectedon that basis.},
	urldate = {2019-01-15},
	booktitle = {The {Stanford} {Encyclopedia} of {Philosophy}},
	publisher = {Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University},
	author = {Varzi, Achille C.},
	editor = {Zalta, Edward N.},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Boolean algebra: the mathematics of, Leśniewski, Stanisław, Sorites paradox, artifact, atomism: 17th to 20th century, atomism: ancient, boundary, chemistry, philosophy of, identity, identity: over time, location and mereology, logic and ontology, logic: fuzzy, many, problem of, mass expressions: logic of, mass expressions: metaphysics of, material constitution, mereology: medieval, monism, nominalism: in metaphysics, object, ordinary objects, plural quantification, propositions: structured, set theory, temporal parts, vagueness}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021