Definition
The above statement of mereological essentialism requires some elaboration. First, what types of objects: abstract or concrete objects? Mereological essentialism is most commonly taken to be a thesis about concrete material objects, but it can also be considered true of a set or proposition. A proposition, or thought, if mereological essentialism is true, has its parts essentially; the concepts that make up the proposition are essential to it.
Further, in the case of material concrete objects, mereological essentialism can be true in different senses depending on how such objects are thought to persist through time, these senses going under the names endurantism and perdurantism. Mereological essentialism for enduring objects - objects that persist by being wholly present every instant, means that the enduring objects only have their spatial parts essentially. Mereological essentialism for perduring objects - objects that are spread out with parts both in space and time, have also their temporal parts essentially in addition to their spatial parts.
Finally, what does it mean for an object to have something essentially? The usual way to explain essentiality is by reference to necessity or possible worlds. Mereological essentialism is then the thesis that objects have their parts necessarily or objects have their parts in every possible world in which the object exists.
Read more about this topic: Mereological Essentialism
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
—Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)
“It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
—Jane Adams (20th century)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)