Premium
THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF COMPOSITION AS IDENTITY, PRIORITY PLURALISM, AND IRREFLEXIVE GROUNDING 1
Author(s) -
BAILEY ANDREW M.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
analytic philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2153-960X
pISSN - 2153-9596
DOI - 10.1111/j.2153-960x.2011.00525.x
Subject(s) - pluralism (philosophy) , composition (language) , citation , identity (music) , sociology , philosophy , epistemology , computer science , library science , linguistics , aesthetics
Some have it that wholes are, somehow, identical to their parts. This doctrine is as alluring as it is puzzling. But in this paper, I show that the doctrine is incompatible with two widely accepted theses. Something has to go. Composition as identity, let us say, is the thesis that for any x, if x is composed of the ys, then x is identical to the ys. This is a radical doctrine; but many have found something right about it. A field composed of six plots just is those six plots, the thought goes; and if we take that thought seriously, is it not reasonable to say the same about every whole and its parts? Ontological grounding has been the subject of much recent work in metaphysics. And historically, it has been invoked to do all sorts of philosophical work: Mental states are grounded in physical states. Moral properties are grounded in natural properties. Sets are grounded in their members. Modal properties are grounded in non-modal properties. Dispositions are grounded in categorical properties. Truths are grounded in being. Or so we are told. Here are two principles concerning ontological grounding that many have found plausible: Priority pluralism, as I shall understand things, is the thesis that wholes are grounded in or ontologically depend on their parts. More precisely: for any x, if x is composed of the (plural) ys, then x is grounded in the ys. Many have found something in this neighborhood plausible. Thus, Conee and Sider: “Consider a tuna salad sandwich. At any given time, the sandwich derives its existence from the existence of the bread, the tuna salad, and any other ingredients that compose it. Without them, it would be nothing. The sandwich’s ingredients do not cause it to exist. Rather, they give it existence directly. The sandwich ‘ontologically depends’ on its ingredients.” The irreflexivity of grounding (henceforth, “irreflexivity”) is the thesis that no things are grounded in themselves. More precisely: for any xs, if there are some