Can we conceptually build the (mereological) “sum” of “all being” / “everything that exists” without running into problems or paradoxes?
Can we think of the resulting concept (sometimes called “Being”, capitalized) as referring to an existing thing itself – which means it also belongs to “everything that exists”?
Because for typical, restricted collections this is not the case. The “sum of all cats” is not a cat itself.
It works for mass nouns like “water” (“the sum of all water” is itself water). Or in case of rather unnatural constructions like “the parts of the Eiffel tower” (assuming we regard the Eiffel tower as a part of itself) – which we can ignore since they start from the whole object as given.
So why does it work for “being”? Why is it so obvious, without any justification, that “being” behaves completely unproblematically according to ordinary mass noun “logic”?
Are there any critics of the concept of the “sum of all being” as an existing thing itself?