Are the statue and the clay mutual parts?
Are the statue and the clay mutual parts?
Are a material object, such as a statue, and its constituting matter, the clay, parts of one another? One wouldn't have thought so, and yet a number of philosophers have argued that they are. I review the arguments for this surprising claim showing how they all fail. I then consider two arguments against the view concluding that there are both pre‐theoretical and theoretical considerations for denying that the statue and the clay are mutual parts.
23-50
Walters, Lee
6588848d-16fa-41f1-a94b-c339c3428c13
18 February 2019
Walters, Lee
6588848d-16fa-41f1-a94b-c339c3428c13
Abstract
Are a material object, such as a statue, and its constituting matter, the clay, parts of one another? One wouldn't have thought so, and yet a number of philosophers have argued that they are. I review the arguments for this surprising claim showing how they all fail. I then consider two arguments against the view concluding that there are both pre‐theoretical and theoretical considerations for denying that the statue and the clay are mutual parts.
Text
__filestore.soton.ac.uk_users_lb8_mydesktop_ePrints_Are The Statue and The Clay Mutual Parts.pdf
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 10 March 2017
e-pub ahead of print date: 20 April 2017
Published date: 18 February 2019
Organisations:
Philosophy
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 402561
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/402561
ISSN: 1468-0068
PURE UUID: 0bc9c5a8-ee7b-4231-8f7d-5ed245c31ffc
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 11 Nov 2016 15:07
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 06:03
Export record
Altmetrics
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
