why isn't everyone a mereological nihilist

submitted by [deleted] from self.Philosophy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]neolib 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In philosophy, mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism) is the metaphysical thesis that there are no objects with proper parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_nihilism

[–]PragmaticStoicism 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Sounds like complete gibberish to me. The premise seems to be that everything that is something is actually not something but some other thing that we perceive as something.

This is a type of convoluted logic that is very common, but comes in different flavors. It is a type of semantic game that bogs down in soft concepts that are hard to disprove, especially for those who are not scientifically literate.

I am confident that reality exist outside of my perception and any claim that how we percieve things with our senses determines the nature of reality is nothing more than nonsense.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]PragmaticStoicism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The question would be how do you justify that "objects with parts" actually exist,

    A leg carries a body. Without a body the leg can't function. Without the leg the body can't walk. Obviously objects with parts exist as I just described an object with parts. Obviously the objects are individually different as they have different functions such that two bodies without legs can't walk, even when connected. Obviously the composite is different than a sum if the parts as it can perform a function as a whole that none of the parts can perform separately.

    It is absurd to claim that there is no such thing as "objects with parts".

    Who is to say that a soul does not have parts?