Simples and gunk

Abstract

An object is a simple if and only if it has no proper parts. An object is gunk if and only if every proper part of that object itself has a proper part. In my dissertation, I address the following questions. The concepts of simples and gunk presuppose the concept of parthood. What is the status of this concept? his question itself divides into the following: does the concept of parthood have universal applicability, so that, just as every object is self-identical, every object has parts? Finally, is the concept of parthood univocal, or are there different notions of parthood, each of which is defined on distinct ontological categories? I argue that the concept of parthood has univocal. I also argue that there is some evidence that the concept of parthood has universal applicability. I address the Simple Question, which is “under what circumstances is it true of some object that it has no proper parts?” I argue against several popular answers to the Simple Question, such as the view that simples are all and only point-sized objects, and the view that simples are maximally continuous material objects. I defend the Brutal View, which holds that there is no true, finitely expressible, and informative answer to the Simple Question. In short, there is no criterion for being a simple. Along the way, I address the question of whether extended simples, i.e., simples that are extended in space, are possible. I argue that one popular argument against the possibility of extended simples is unsound. I address the question of whether both simples and gunk are possible. I argue that it is metaphysically possible that material objects be composed of gunk.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 102,546

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Simples and gunk.Hud Hudson - 2007 - Philosophy Compass 2 (2):291–302.
No Simples, No Gunk, No Nothing.Sam Cowling - 2014 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 95 (1):246-260.
Against maxcon simples.Kris McDaniel - 2003 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):265 – 275.
A tale of two simples.Joshua Spencer - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 148 (2):167 - 181.
Simples and the possibility of discrete space.Neal A. Tognazzini - 2006 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (1):117 – 128.
A Tale of Two Parts.Andrew J. Jaeger - 2014 - Res Philosophica 91 (3):477-484.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-04-10

Downloads
76 (#281,631)

6 months
15 (#193,731)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Kris McDaniel
Syracuse University

Citations of this work

Extended simples.Kris McDaniel - 2007 - Philosophical Studies 133 (1):131 - 141.
Natural classes of universals: Why Armstrong's analysis fails.Lowell Friesen - 2006 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (2):285 – 296.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Four Dimensionalism.Theodore Sider - 1997 - Philosophical Review 106 (2):197-231.
The Paradoxes of Time Travel.David Lewis - 1976 - American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (2):145-152.
Parthood.Theodore Sider - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (1):51-91.
Is there a fundamental level?Jonathan Schaffer - 2003 - Noûs 37 (3):498–517.

View all 54 references / Add more references