Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does a commitment to mereological universalism automatically bring along a commitment to the controversial doctrine of mereological extensionalism —the view that objects with the same proper parts are identical? A recent argument suggests the answer is ‘yes’. This paper attempts a systematic response to the argument, considering nearly every available line of reply. It argues that only one approach—the mutual parts view—can yield a viable mereology where universalism does not entail extensionalism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A. J. Cotnoir (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: