Is mereological nihilism, the metaphysical doctrine that objects with proper parts do not exist, the same as atomism? If not, what are the differences?

How can mereological nihilism work without assuming that there are at some point only objects which do not contain parts, i.e. philosophical atoms (things that are not composed, which means undividable)? If philosophical atoms do not exist, it would follow from mereological nihilism that nothing does exist, because everything has proper parts.

  • 1
    Atomists do not hold that tables and chairs do not exist because they have parts, indeed they consider atoms to be parts of everything. And the way mereological nihilism works is e.g. by reinterpreting 'there are tables' a la van Inwagen, as 'there are simples arranged tablewise', so "nothing is" does not follow. The difference with mereology would not show at the common sense level, it only affects some subtle philosophical issues. – Conifold Nov 30 '16 at 19:53
  • @Conifold: what about entailment, does mereological nihilism not entail atomism? – wolf-revo-cats Dec 1 '16 at 11:25
  • You seem to use "entailment" in some special way, if so please explain what it is. On colloquial meaning I do not see what difference it makes, so no. – Conifold Dec 1 '16 at 18:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.