Correction: (max 500 charact.)
The complaint will not be published.
Bigelow I 89
Structural universals/Peter Forrest/Bigelow/Pargetter: (similar to our higher level relations): Forrest: thesis: there is a quasi-mereological n-part operation that takes n quasi-parts and assembles them into a quasi-whole:
Operation ‹a1,…an› = an+1.
Bigelow/Pargetter: that is equivalent to the fact that we have a (n+1)-digit relation:
R(a1,…an, an+1).
BigelowVsForrest: our differences lie in the fact that we do not accept the quasi-mereology.
>
Mereology , >
Parts , >
Whole , >
Mereological Sum , >
J. Bigelow .
Entailments/VsBigelow: one could object that we have explained the entailments between 1st level properties by appeal to higher level properties.
>
Entailment .
In doing so, we have practically assumed that there are also entailments between them (this is circular).
I 90
Bsp
Necessary (being methane R (being carbon)
Entailment: then because of this relation the entailment is valid, between the methane-being of something and the fact that this thing has a part which is carbon:
(I) Necessarily, for any F and G, if (F) R (G), then every instance of F has a part that is an instance of G.
The principle (I) involves necessity. This must be grounded in the essence of universals to avoid modal basic concepts. But is not the appeal to essences itself modal (and modal magic)?
>
Essence , >
Modality , >
Necessity , >
Modal Logic .
BigelowVsVs: yes and no. We all need a little magic sometimes. But this is white magic. You just argue sometimes about what is white and what is black.