On Cotnoir’s Two Notions of Proper Parthood
| Authors |
|
|---|---|
| Publication date | 09-2022 |
| Journal | Philosophical Studies |
| Volume | Issue number | 179 | 9 |
| Pages (from-to) | 2787–2795 |
| Organisations |
|
| Abstract | A.J. Cotnoir has argued that we should distinguish between two notions of proper parthood: outstripped part and non-identical part. Outstripped parthood is an asymmetric relation, but non-identical parthood is not. We argue, first, that the intuitions Cotnoir uses to motivate these notions do not always give the right verdict; and, second, that systematic reasons for distinguishing these two notions of parthood have further counter-intuitive consequences. This means the distinction between two notions of proper parthood currently lacks adequate motivation. |
| Document type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Published at | https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-022-01795-5 |
| Downloads |
s11098-022-01795-5
(Final published version)
|
| Permalink to this page | |