Abstract

In One Priest argues for the contradictoriness of Unity. The argument is that the unity of complex things is contradictory. It is contradictory that there are complex wholes composed of many parts. But there are. Thus, the explanation of unity has to be a contradictory entity, a gluon, which both is and is not an object. The book then develops and utilises a theory of gluons. The argument for the contradictoriness of Unity is crucial; without it there is no motivation for the theory of gluons. It fails. It does so because ‘because’ is a sentential connective. So what follows it must be a sentence, not a list. So Priest is wrong to say that in a complex whole there must be something, an entity, which binds the parts together.