Essay Available:
Pages:
6 pages/≈1650 words
Sources:
1
Style:
APA
Subject:
Social Sciences
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 25.92
Topic:
When Objects Become Parts
Essay Instructions:
Peter van Inwagen argues that no good account of what it is for some objects (as parts) to compose another object (as a whole). Van Inwagen's argument is an argument by cases, which leaves open that there is some other account of what it is for some objects x_1, x_2, ... x_n to compose another object y. Present and assess one or two accounts of such composition that van Inwagen doesn't consider.
This website is a summary of what van inwagen thinks: http://philosophyafterdark(dot)com/2012/07/comments-on-van-inwagens-when-are-objects-parts/
However, PLEASE DO NOT write according to that website or please do not paraphrase or cite. Please only use my text book (i will attach the pages)
Also, please follow instructions keenly please! I will also attach (how to write a philosophy paper) All the instructions are in there. So please read carefully and follow.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
When objects become parts
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
When objects become parts
The argument presented by Van Inwagen is really an argument of cases that leaves open that there is some other account of what it is for some objects to compose another object. In this paper, two accounts of such composition that Peter Van Inwagen does not consider are presented and assessed comprehensively. These two accounts are contact and fastening. It is argued in this paper that fastening and contact offer an answer to the Special Composition Question.
Van Inwagen defines composition in two stages: first, he states that y is the sum of the xs only if the xs are parts of y and each part of y overlaps – that is, shares a part with – at least 1 of the xs; and secondly, the xs compose y only if y is the sum of the xs and no 2 of the xs overlap (Van Inwagen 628). An answer to the Special Composition Question (SCQ) would tell when or under what conditions, composition really took place. Composition and parthood are slightly interdefinable. Given composition, Van Inwagen defines parthood as: x is a part of y only if there are zs such that the zs and x compose y. An object x is, in essence, a proper part of something only if there are zs, and one of which is not x, such that x and the zs compose something (Van Inwagen 629).
Van Inwagen presents several possible answers to the SCQ. (1) Contact: this is the first possible answer to the Special Composition Question. Van Inwagen stated that in order to get the xs to compose something, one has to bring them into contact. The xs can only compose something if they are in contact, otherwise, they do not. The xs are in contact if the ancestral of the contact relation hold between any pair of the xs (Van Inwagen 630). (2) Fastening: in order to get xs to compose something, one has to cause them to fasten to one another (Van Inwagen 632). (3) Cohesion: to get xs to compose something, one has to cause them to cohere (Van Inwagen 633). (iv) Fusion: to get xs to compose something, one must cause them to fuse. Van Inwagen noted that these four possible first answers to SCQ are the moderate answers. Extreme answers to the Special Composition Question are nihilism and universalism (Van Inwagen 633). (v) Nihilism: It is not possible for anyone to cause that something is such that the xs compose it, given that, necessarily, – if the xs are 2 or more – nothing is such that the xs compose it (Van Inwagen 634). (vi) Universalism: it is not possible for anyone to cause that something is such that the xs compose it, given that, essentially, – if no 2 of the xs overlap – something is such that the xs compose it (Van Inwagen 634).
Nonetheless, it is at least likely that there are objects which compose something, and it is also at least likely there are objects that do not compose anything. Even though these possibilities exist, they are unrealized given that the world is very complex and rich. There are objects that compose something, for instance the object car is composed of several objects such as doors, headlights, seats, tires, steering wheel, and other parts.
Contact as answer to the Special Composition Question
In order to get the xs to compose something, what I think is that one should bring them into contact. I think that the xs can only compose something if they are in contact, otherwise, they do not. It is technically convenient to treat every object as being in contact with itself and to stipulate that 2 objects are in contact only if they do not overlap. I think that for any xs, there is a binary relation which holds between z and y just in the case that z and y are among the xs and are in contact. What I think is that the xs are in contact if the ancestral of the contact relation on the xs holds between any pair of the xs. Consider 6 blocks that are arranged in the following manner and surrounded by empty space:
The 6 blocks are not in contact: blocks 13, 15, 17 and 19 are in contact. In the situation illustrated above, other than the 6 blocks, I think that there are at least 7 other objects. This is because the objects might be having parts which are actually not shown in the picture. Nonetheless, even if the blocks do not really have proper parts, contact requires that the illustration displays precisely 7 composite objects only on the assumption that, for any xs, the xs compose at most one thing. In essence, it follows from the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, along with the principle that the properties of a composite object are totally determined by the properties of and the relations amongst its parts. I think that for any xs, the xs compose at most one thing at a time. I believe that it appears reasonable to state that if one has 100 wood...
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
When objects become parts
The argument presented by Van Inwagen is really an argument of cases that leaves open that there is some other account of what it is for some objects to compose another object. In this paper, two accounts of such composition that Peter Van Inwagen does not consider are presented and assessed comprehensively. These two accounts are contact and fastening. It is argued in this paper that fastening and contact offer an answer to the Special Composition Question.
Van Inwagen defines composition in two stages: first, he states that y is the sum of the xs only if the xs are parts of y and each part of y overlaps – that is, shares a part with – at least 1 of the xs; and secondly, the xs compose y only if y is the sum of the xs and no 2 of the xs overlap (Van Inwagen 628). An answer to the Special Composition Question (SCQ) would tell when or under what conditions, composition really took place. Composition and parthood are slightly interdefinable. Given composition, Van Inwagen defines parthood as: x is a part of y only if there are zs such that the zs and x compose y. An object x is, in essence, a proper part of something only if there are zs, and one of which is not x, such that x and the zs compose something (Van Inwagen 629).
Van Inwagen presents several possible answers to the SCQ. (1) Contact: this is the first possible answer to the Special Composition Question. Van Inwagen stated that in order to get the xs to compose something, one has to bring them into contact. The xs can only compose something if they are in contact, otherwise, they do not. The xs are in contact if the ancestral of the contact relation hold between any pair of the xs (Van Inwagen 630). (2) Fastening: in order to get xs to compose something, one has to cause them to fasten to one another (Van Inwagen 632). (3) Cohesion: to get xs to compose something, one has to cause them to cohere (Van Inwagen 633). (iv) Fusion: to get xs to compose something, one must cause them to fuse. Van Inwagen noted that these four possible first answers to SCQ are the moderate answers. Extreme answers to the Special Composition Question are nihilism and universalism (Van Inwagen 633). (v) Nihilism: It is not possible for anyone to cause that something is such that the xs compose it, given that, necessarily, – if the xs are 2 or more – nothing is such that the xs compose it (Van Inwagen 634). (vi) Universalism: it is not possible for anyone to cause that something is such that the xs compose it, given that, essentially, – if no 2 of the xs overlap – something is such that the xs compose it (Van Inwagen 634).
Nonetheless, it is at least likely that there are objects which compose something, and it is also at least likely there are objects that do not compose anything. Even though these possibilities exist, they are unrealized given that the world is very complex and rich. There are objects that compose something, for instance the object car is composed of several objects such as doors, headlights, seats, tires, steering wheel, and other parts.
Contact as answer to the Special Composition Question
In order to get the xs to compose something, what I think is that one should bring them into contact. I think that the xs can only compose something if they are in contact, otherwise, they do not. It is technically convenient to treat every object as being in contact with itself and to stipulate that 2 objects are in contact only if they do not overlap. I think that for any xs, there is a binary relation which holds between z and y just in the case that z and y are among the xs and are in contact. What I think is that the xs are in contact if the ancestral of the contact relation on the xs holds between any pair of the xs. Consider 6 blocks that are arranged in the following manner and surrounded by empty space:
The 6 blocks are not in contact: blocks 13, 15, 17 and 19 are in contact. In the situation illustrated above, other than the 6 blocks, I think that there are at least 7 other objects. This is because the objects might be having parts which are actually not shown in the picture. Nonetheless, even if the blocks do not really have proper parts, contact requires that the illustration displays precisely 7 composite objects only on the assumption that, for any xs, the xs compose at most one thing. In essence, it follows from the principle of the identity of indiscernibles, along with the principle that the properties of a composite object are totally determined by the properties of and the relations amongst its parts. I think that for any xs, the xs compose at most one thing at a time. I believe that it appears reasonable to state that if one has 100 wood...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: