A Mereological Causal Proposition Argument

Mereology is the branch of philosophy which studies parts and wholes and their relations. In two previous posts I outlined an argument for a causal proposition; in this post I present another such argument, but one couched in mereological terms. In essence it is the same argument, but uses distinct concepts.

Here is the argument:

  1. Everything real is either a part or a whole
  2. Every part, qua part, is dependent
  3. The existence of finite things is not a whole
  4. Therefore the existence of finite things is a part
  5. Therefore the existence of finite things is dependent
  6. Whatever is dependent is dependent upon a cause
  7. Therefore the existence of finite things is dependent upon a cause

Premise 3 is true because if the existence of a thing were a whole thing, the thing would just be existence, i.e. subsistent existence. But finite things are not existence, they are things which have existence. For example, a giraffe is not existence, it is a giraffe which has existence.

2 thoughts on “A Mereological Causal Proposition Argument

  1. Your first sentence doesn’t appear to make sense: Everything real is either a part of a whole.

    Did you mean to type: Everything real is either a part or a whole. ?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s