This article was downloaded by:[Australian National Univ] On: 23 September 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 772989882] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australasian Journal of Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659165 From to monism Jonathan Schaffer a a University of Massachusetts-Amherst,

Online Publication Date: 01 June 2007 To cite this Article: Schaffer, Jonathan (2007) 'From nihilism to monism', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 85:2, 175 - 191 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00048400701343150 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048400701343150

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 eelgclnhls steve htalcnrt bet r ipe None simple. parts. are proper objects have concrete None all composite. that mereologically view are the is nihilism Mereological rsm parting some offer and will fragmented, I is VII – sense anti-nihilist. IV the common I Sections for VIII how Section advice In in of Finally . monistic. speak go of should will nihilist taxonomy the why One. a reasons seamless provide to a of leading vision variant, Parmenidean of the idea Democritean rather the but not void, other, the the on in and atoms , folk hand one the nooy hsi h tr bu htcmosnei divided is commonsense what about sufficient story simplest the the On is demands This composites. methodology ontology. mereological commonsense hand, embraces other ontology the commonsense hand, it. one delivers monist the and ontology, sufficient that simplest the argue demands will nihilist I One. seamless partless, aksa [forthcoming: Markosian aslpwr,wihh hnshpeswe hr is there when happens thinks he which powers, causal us-iiitcdcrnsaedfne nvnIwgn[90 n ercs[01—a nae allows Inwagen [2001]—van Merricks and [1990] Inwagen van constitute they in when only defended composites are doctrines Quasi-nihilistic iiimsnei nal htteol oceeojc is object concrete of version only a the is monism that Such entails world. it the is since object nihilism concrete only the that view be will simples such that assume nihilism of discussions 1 matter. of bits wee other or particles point of plurality nihilism Mereological 2007 June 191; – 175 pp. 2, No. 85, Vol. Philosophy of Journal Australasian SN00-42pitIS 4162 online 1471-6828 print/ISSN 0004-8402 ISSN uhnhls sitoue nvnIwgn[90,addfne nDr 20]adRsnadDr [2002]. Dorr and Rosen and [2001] Dorr in defended and [1990], Inwagen van in introduced is nihilism Such h parts The htwl mrei tr bu o omnes is commonsense how about story a is emerge will What napl,i tl ae sa tep odfn t n rtclyt establish what, to critically monism; and it, than defend philosophy to attempt in an is assumptions. commoner its rare, and still the is demands cheaper unhappily, nihilist is The it. monism. delivers monist in I the world. culminates the and simple: ontology, big nihilism sufficient one simplest is that object concrete argue only the simple. will are that objects view concrete the all is that monism view the is nihilism Mereological tp/wwtnfc.kjunl O:10.1080/00048400701343150 DOI: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals nScin I ilitouenhls n t monistic its and nihilism introduce will I III – I Sections in : RMNHLS OMONISM TO NIHILISM FROM x 4]. steve htalcnrt bet r ipe Extant simple. are objects concrete all that view the is utaainJunlo Philosophy of Journal Australasian .Mrooia Nihilism Mereological I. life a oahnSchaffer Jonathan ercsalw opstsol hnte aenon-redundant have they when only composites allows Merricks , Ó 07Asrlsa soito fPhilosophy of Association Australasian 2007 iiimcliae nmonism in culminates nihilism mind a o ute icsino iiim see nihilism, of discussion further For . xsec monism Existence ayadsmall and many 1 Hr mlimiting am I (Here Shle 87 62] 1897: [Schiller n i simple big one divided between nthe On . —some The . sthe is —on —a Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 argument 176 iiimt mre twudb noe usinwehri o ol umnt nmns tak oNed to (thanks monism in culminate would too for it argument other whether some question point). argument’—were open an this an such on be by would Markosian motivated it as emerge, ‘nihilism to mean nihilism shall I ‘nihilism’ of speak agtn opst bet r xlcti ercs[01 6 n or[2001: Dorr argument and the 56] of [2001: Versions Merricks impotence. in causal/explanatory explicit face are objects or composite reduce targeting must properties mental that grounds discussion. further for [forthcoming] simples. are persons discussion. that further view for the [2004] of Uzquiano defence a for [1976] Chisholm see Though in nooy atce r h nycnrt bet needed: objects concrete only the are particles ontology, sufficient 5 4 3 2 these galaxies. whether and planets on no so, families, and if persons and entities, on parts.) of neutral proper sorts is have nihilism other might Such any entities objects. are concrete there actual to whether nihilism of scope the htwl mremr ul nScinII althis call I reasons III, For Section matter. in of fully bits something more wee are emerge other They or will minima. electrons) that physical (e.g., are particles point particles like These phrase. the particles. of the sense are intended all the are in Nihilism these that not cup. accepts but nihilist coffee rocks, The and as real. lamp, real is lists desk, as these computer, on a nothing that list entails now might I as instance real as all are these say, rocks. we As and goods. apples, dry and pebbles of specimens chairs, moderate-sized and other tables list might one Here objects. concrete ih tl odr h eotto resort why is wonder: still talk might table nihilist, hideously minimal (often the the For the shorthand. summarizing is, particles. useful by That of keep fiction. arrangement its the complex) earns for composition utility-maker of the fiction identifies paraphrase the that aevle n oneac alsadohrcomposite other and tables countenance and , face nutvl biu n ecpulyaprn?Wa ol oiaeaview nihilism? a minimal motivate could as What radical apparent? as perceptually and obvious intuitively hr satbe h iia iiithlsta hteit r particles are table-wise’). term exists (‘arranged plural a what predicate via that non-distributive paraphrased is a holds table and nihilist the that of (‘particles’) minimal say talk we the Here when table-wise. table, Thus arranged invokes a particles. nihilist her is minimal involve there The that fictions. fictions and and paraphrases paraphrases invokes nihilist the fcmoiin hc ste‘cin htteprilscmoelarger compose particles the that fiction ‘fiction’ the to the according true is objects. is concrete which say we composition, what that of holds also nihilist minimal h tl fagmn rcsbc oKm[93,woue tt ru gis o-eutv hscls,on physicalism, non-reductive McGrath against and argue to amendment, it composition’ uses who of [1993], Kim fiction to the back traces to as argument ‘according well of style as the The [2001] for Merricks [2002] and Dorr paraphrase, and table-wise’ Rosen arranged objects. See composite ‘particles concrete the actual for be would [1990] exist, Inwagen to were van they See if entities, such any that assuming am I Here iiimi aia iw tetista hr r otbe n his no chairs, and tables no are there that entails It view. radical a is Nihilism codn oetn esoso iiim h nyata oceeobjects concrete actual only the nihilism, of versions extant to According upsn htteeprprssadfitoswr eleog,one enough, well work fictions and paraphrases these that Supposing h anagmn o iia iiimis nihilism minimal for argument main The hnw oktl bu alsadohrprotdcmoieobjects, composite purported other and tables about talk folk we When .Prilsaeteol oceeojcsnee oepanhwteworld the how explain to needed objects concrete only the are Particles 1. oahnSchaffer Jonathan evolves. eodexercise Second . 5 h ruetbgn yntn htt aea explanatorily an have to that noting by begins argument The 4 h aahaeadtefito rv opeetr,in complementary, prove fiction the and paraphrase The okaon n itsm bet htyuse For see. you that objects some list and around look : that h o uttk okdsoreat discourse folk take just not Why ? 2 is exercise First h xlntr exclusion explanatory the iia nihilism minimal x .] titysekn hnI when speaking Strictly 2.1]. itsm actual some list : concreta . 3 as , The Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 n eain,a oendb etna as.Terc n the and causal rock the ‘all The handle can laws). particles Newtonian The of properties mentioned. by terms their be work’. in a (via governed not purely time shattering need as through told rock window atomistic atoms be relations, a Newtonian Newtonian can as the and here closed of describe story a evolution would causal the consider complete folk example, The we window. toy what a containing system take To story. —oln stetbei o ieal dnia oteprilsarne al-ie hr ilb omto room be will necessity. there without table-wise, posited entity arranged an particles as the table, to the identical reject literally still not but is particles table the accept the as long 2—so is whole osbe h psei eec f3wudmiti htw aen odrao o eivn in status the believing to for return reason will I good [2003]. no of Merricks have For end and principles. [2003] the we are Occamite Sider at they that on between briefly parasitic that maintain exchange 3 seems evidence the would this of good see But 3 is discussion entities. of epiphenomenal further which and conceivable, defence redundant surely epistemic explanatorily are The ’s entities from possible. epiphenomenal dictum implausible: Stranger’s seems Eleatic the invoke is assumption further This ultimately 5]. is [1990: matter simples’’’ that ‘‘elementary parts: assume ‘‘metaphysical proper ‘I no or have explicitly: that atoms’’ things assumption questionable: of ‘‘mereological empirically composed this is flags or thing explanation material Inwagen an every particles’’ be that Van will assume explanation particles. I physical particulate. the of that terms commitment further in the involves argument nihilist’s The 8 7 6 epiphenomenal and either. Occam’s posit redundant to grounds. need explanatorily no methodological is both on there as defended against entities, best cuts is Razor rejection a Such The explain. to epiphenomenal. are composites if they while all the redundant, are at the they for nothing if all explain So at (as for. left anything they suffice explain things already tables nothing explain particles as the such to is what composites explain needed best there objects at can concrete then composites only 1), the are per particles the If nature of laws of whatever arrangement with and the composite properties, No of together number, them. story the particles, govern causal of simple complete terms in the mereologically told that be claims can 1 world precisely, more Somewhat alsi diint h atce srcgiigwa sete explanatorily either is what recognizing epiphenomenal: is or particles the redundant to addition in tables n ppeoea entities: epiphenomenal and atce.Se[atr18;Lws19;Amtog19;Sdr20]frfrhrdsuso.Lewis, discussion. further for 2007] Sider 1997; is Armstrong composition 1991; that conclude Lewis all Sider 1988; and [Baxter Armstrong, See particles. table ih lob eeddo nooia n/reitmcgons h nooia eec f3would 3 of defence ontological The grounds. epistemic and/or ontological on defended be also might 3 that maintaining by 2 resist might One that holds only argument exclusion the of version Kim’s that Note h ruetcniuswt eeto fbt xlntrl redundant explanatorily both of rejection a with continues argument The like objects concrete composite recognizing that adds then argument The .Teeaen xlntrl eudn reihnmnlentities. epiphenomenal or redundant explanatorily no are There 3. world the how explain to needed objects concrete only the are particles If 2. is h atce ragdtbews) fs hntecmoiei o oehn nadto othe to addition in something not is composite the then so If table-wise). arranged particles the one vle,te fteewr opst uso atce,teecomposites these entities. particles, epiphenomenal of or redundant sums explanatorily composite be were would there if then evolves, 6 ,bti eeyiett-iei oerset.Ti aaoy hsswl o upr eitneto resistance support not will thesis ‘analogy’ This respects. some in identity-like merely is but ), x V. x VIII. opsto sidentity is composition concreta Sophist ietbe edb etoe nthis in mentioned be need tables like not htt ei ohv aslpwr u this But power. causal have to is be to that , dniy(fe l,teprsare parts the all, (after identity 8 ota h composite the that so , h physical the 7 rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From e oepaneverything. explain to suffices is h atce eg,the (e.g., particles the many hl the while 177 Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 en ninhlsi.I h nei hl s mns’t ee pcfial oeitnemonism. existence to specifically refer to ‘monism’ use shall I interim the In anti-nihilistic. being oial ro oterprs hyaetee si ee obgnwt,adbigtee rce oexpress to proceed there, being and Schaffer with, 420]. See therefore, begin [1957: determine’ to are, to). and were, philosophers relation pervade it monistic priority they as best by natures are there, the emphasized whose ‘monists’ are wholes in parts traditional They ‘The in most stand parts. notes: themselves that their to evidence Joad to whole some As prior and monists. logically the monism, priority for priority as of parts read defence the a for of [forthcoming] existence the presupposes rmssls luiiiya eut hsconsider: Thus result. a as plausibility lose premises 11 merely as nihilism treat will I text main the in if even Thus world. conceivable, exist. actual least actually the at about they surely claim believe are 10 contingent to entities a reason redundant making no and epiphenomenal have since may well, we as false seems That read is world’ ‘the (where false seems That 4 to get to way natural The 9 sound— is pursuing argument now the am Suppose nihilism leads. I argument case, does the any where and In of valid, question individually. is the plausible argument the seems but premise implausible, each highly seem may conclusion The in.Adconsider: And sufficient. explanatorily not are particles the which at or all, at particles no are hl.Pirt oimi hstetaiinldcrn that doctrine traditional the thus is monism Priority whole. is world) oceeojcsand objects concrete genus fmns for monism of target 178 ie oimteqeto ee rss ra es tnvraie ihntedmi fcnrt objects. concrete of domain the and within one, arises single never a it compose least entities at many or when arises, the never asks to question question answers the composition all with monism special compatible given The model 1990]. only the Inwagen is [van model atom one the Indeed, ol opieascn oceu.S h n utb simple. be must One the parts So such else concretum. or and second parts, one proper is a any there vice have comprise If not cannot direct. would it but is object, nihilism, nihilism concrete entails to one monism monism only from Thus is entailment there One. The that the adding versa. simple, agrees, such monist a one such only simple, are objects concrete actual xsec oimi h iwta hr xssoeadol n actual one only and one exists there only that is view There object. the concrete is monism Existence yield? arguments exclusion explanatory alr fetimn rmnhls omns a ese namdlin model a in satisfies seen model monism. two-particles-only be The not can particles. but two monism nihilism are to exists that nihilism all from which entailment of failure h iia iiitmgtwn oda togrcnlso,namely: conclusion, stronger a draw to want might nihilist minimal The sTdSdrpitdott e oimi culycmail ihbt iiimadcasclmereology. classical and nihilism both with compatible actually is monism me, to out pointed Sider Ted As certain a identifies doctrine monistic a general In monism. of species many of one is monism Existence ilrtr opirt oimbifl ttecnldn oto of portion concluding the at briefly monism priority to return will I xsec oimsol edsigihdfrom distinguished be should monism Existence uhmns saseiso iiim hr h iiithlsta all that holds nihilist the Where nihilism. of species a is monism Such concludes: argument the this From .Teeaen opst uso particles. of sums composite no are There 4. 3 1 4 0 0 0 eesrl,prilsaeteol oceeojcsnee oepanhwtewrdevolves. world the how explain to needed objects concrete only the are particles Necessarily, . particles. of sums composite no are there Necessarily, . oahnSchaffer Jonathan monism t eesrl,teeaen xlntrl eudn reihnmnlentities. epiphenomenal or redundant explanatorily no are there Necessarily, n nto counting of unit and basic . hr r te oceeojcs(h at) u hs xs eiaiey sfamnso the of fragments as derivatively, exist these but parts), (the objects concrete other are There . t ¼ culcnrt bet and objects concrete actual require u ¼ ai oes roiymns hshlsta n oceeojc tewoe the whole, (the object concrete one that holds thus monism Priority tokens. basic u 0 n hnhlsthat holds then and , ol et rfi eest prtrt rmss1–3 u h resulting the But 3. – 1 premises to operator necessity a prefix to be would notlg fprils htsr fotlg do ontology of sort What particles? of ontology an I xsec Monism Existence II. edicto de h world the u ¼ r[2007: Schaffer See tokens. roiymonism priority ,snepeual hr r oewrd nwihthere which in worlds some are there presumably since ), t scutdby counted as . 10 9 hl spirt part to prior is whole roiymns smns for monism is monism Priority . u soe xsec oimi h species the is monism Existence one. is x II hr ugs ta a of way a as it suggest I where VIII, x ]frfrhrdsuso fthe of discussion further for 1] pca opsto question composition special adcrn which doctrine (a 11 t ¼ actual The Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 ehnc si em fasnl ol-tmzpigtruhcngrto space. configuration through zipping world-atom single a of terms in is mechanics objects. decide concrete to more concerns monist is only the or discussion to parts, under it undetached leave monism arbitrary I for countenances. parts. allows proper it fiction has parts appropriate world which the the whether in that as restrictive supposition detail the of by questions governed such fiction a is It 14 Cortens and Hawthorne paraphrases. monism adverbial 1987; of of [Johnston form explanation See the further get objects.) for that we concrete 1997] recall so Rosen about Though and region-indexed, monism properties. 13 Burgess as a and finite and relation only regions 1995; that instantiation is various says the to discussion ‘Spinoza commitment under treat involves interpretation: to this is Bennett’s instantiates-at- that strategy world on the the least like: formally, constructions modes. at More many Spinoza, its 92]. and to world [1984: the back ‘‘modes’’ just is are trace There particulars there-ishly. may chair-ish strategy and here-ishly, This table-ish be might world the 12 in path (a world the of govern aspect the nature of physical of laws the evolution. story whatever temporal of with causal together terms complete space), in configuration the physical told that be claims can 5 world precisely, more Somewhat 15 aslsoyhr a etl ueyi em ftewrdsoccupational world’s the of terms in complete The purely window. told vis-a a be shattering can manner rock here a containing as world story Newtonian describe causal a would consider folk example, toy the a what take To story. this in steeaymr rls fi noepaewihmgtpeeti from it prevent might which [ place is’ it one what in of it full of nor is alike; all less all but is or illusion. together, it more since an holding particles divisible, is any it like diversity is there apparent ‘Nor nothing is All written: are has simple. Parmenides seamless there father a As that is rocks, adds world no families, The Monism and either. persons galaxies. no chairs, and and tables planets, no are there that entails ScinI.We esyta hr satbe h oithlsta what that holds monist the table, a is there that is say exists we When I). (Section em ftewrdadismodes. its and world the of terms strue is eso fteepaaoyecuinagmn.Temnsi eso fthe of version monistic The argument. runs: exclusion argument explanatory the of version One. than the clumsy its of less earns is aspects talk table-ish decomposition Table the world. of the about of fiction talk aspects the The nominalizing by complementary. keep prove fiction the idwne o emnind h ol er l h aslinformation. causal the all bears world The mentioned. be not need window own ol eopssit rprparts. proper into decomposes world nti en let[96 rusta h otntrlotlg fbt etna n quantum and Newtonian both of ontology natural most the that of argues form [1996] the that Albert recall Though vein, laws. this and properties In physical to commitment involves ( 5 composition thesis of clarified, fiction So the of idea nihilist’s the from lifted is decomposition of fiction the of idea The of terms in tables of talk paraphrase can monist the is, That .Tewrdi h nycnrt betnee oepanhwteworld the how explain to needed object concrete only the is world The 5. oimi neteeyrdclve.Mns,a omo nihilism, of form a as Monism, view. radical extremely an is Monism oim xrml aia huhi a e a emtvtdb a by motivated be can be, may it though radical extremely Monism, hnw oktl bu alsadterik h oitivksher invokes monist the ilk, their and tables about talk folk we When paraphrases evolves. codn otefito fdecomposition of fiction the to according h ol setdtable-ishly aspected world the ` vsNwoincngrto space. configuration Newtonian -vis pnz elyi aigta riaypriua hnsaewy htraiyis’ reality that ways are things particular ordinary that saying is really Spinoza . . . and 14 opee ftewrdlk alsne ementioned be need tables like world the of pieces No fictions rn rmtoeo h iia nihilist minimal the of those from different , r1 alho,adtewrdinstantiates-at- world the and tablehood, 12 h oitas od htwa esay we what that holds also monist The 13 eetl ftbe sprprsdin paraphrased is tables of talk Here . swt iiim h aahaeand paraphrase the nihilism, with As ope deba ulfiain fteworld the of qualifications adverbial complex hc ste‘cin htthe that ‘fiction’ the is which , Frag 8a]. . 15 rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From h okadthe and rock The r2 hiho.(Note chairhood. So . 179 x I). Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 16 (2 entities seven recognizes mereology classical Here The support. Occamite same the claims and 3 as same concludes: then the argument exactly is 7 epiphenomenal. are entities: they epiphenomenal all they and at all nothing at the explain anything what explain they explain parts if best proper while at the can redundant, if parts are So left proper for. nothing Its suffices is explain. already there to world then parts 5), (given proper everything its explain for to suffices world the If 180 90.Se[ios18]frfrhrdiscussion. further for 1987] [Simons See 1940]. ietbe srcgiigwa sete xlntrl eudn or redundant explanatorily either is what recognizing is epiphenomenal: tables like hteegsi htteeaemn iiitcotlge.S osdrthe consider So ontologies. nihilistic mereology: many classical in are model there three-atom that is emerges What tm) n omo iiimadceryteitne omo nihilism only of that form intended literature—maintains the extant clearly the nihilism—and of in form One atoms). nwihonly which on xss n nemdaefrso iiimaepsil,icuigan including possible, are U nihilism only of that only forms which version—maintains on intermediate ontology monistic And nihilism—the exists. of form second y‘lsia eelg’Ima h oi fpr-hl eain eeoe n[enr n Goodman and [Leonard in developed relations part-whole of logic the mean I mereology’ ‘classical By h ruetcniuswt eeto fbt xlntrl redundant explanatorily both of rejection a with continues argument The h ruette dsta eonzn rprprso h world the of parts proper recognizing that adds then argument The .Tewrdhsn rprparts. proper no has world The 8. entities. epiphenomenal or redundant explanatorily no are There 7. world the how explain to needed object concrete only the is world the If 6. oahnSchaffer Jonathan vle,te fteewr rprprso h ol,teepoe parts proper these world, entities. the epiphenomenal of or parts redundant proper explanatorily be were would there if then evolves, s and y xs,adoeo hc only which on one and exist, r , I.Nhlsi Ontologies Nihilistic III. s and , t xs,oeo hc only which on one exist, 16 x , y t n and , and 7 niis for entities, 1 x r xs.Teeare These exist. and z xs.Bta But exist. z xs,one exist, n ¼ 3 Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 noptbeotlge.Wypstpitprils rmdln simples, middling world? or the particles, have point could one posit when model. Why classical ontologies. the incompatible on This maximum large U. mereological maximally a unique universe: positing the by the is nihilism concrete which is maximal one simple, satisfies exactly object underlying it that and concrete formula The exists, monistic actual object the interchangeably. only satisfies doctrine the ‘monism’ underlying that and is nihilism’ doctrine ‘maximal diagrams. use classical the of middle the in appear they – intermediary oim obgnwt,tenhls a ohn ols.Wa is What lose. to nothing has nihilist existence embrace the is should it with, monism—that nihilist about mereological begin objectionable the To that argue monism. now will I classical the on maximum mereological maximal the The is model. that classical model. entity the the on posits minima nihilist mereological are that entities bu iiim n htrsossaeaalbefrtenihilist— the for available are monist. the responses for available what equally fictions—are and and paraphrases nihilism, about neahdparts undetached oiigta h n n nycnrt beti .Terae h rfr od e eelg ihawider a with mereology her text. do main as to understood the prefers be who throughout then reader ‘U’ might The should for ‘O’ O. nihilist which ‘O’ is maximal (for object substitute The object concrete objects. may concrete only concrete domain maximal and all unique one of a the exists fusion that there unique positing that the prove as to to reserved), able used be be then still will is one U entities, composition. of uniqueness U that the fusion by the is established Comp: (U is composition operation: U unrestricted complementation of by the uniqueness established define is the U and of everything), existence of The reserved). typically is universe] the plus mereology classical as such it mereology, perhaps classical So of small, small. variant very very supplemented something are some is atoms atom mereological physical the A that parts. presumed proper been without entity has an is atom mereological hsi h oto rnil httemns a eada h cin fe l,a oe bv n 1,mns is monism 11), (n. above noted as all, After fiction. the as regard 19 mereology. may classical monist unsupplemented the with that compatible principle of sort the is This 18 17 countenanced, are relations part proper simple. ontologies—no is everything nihilistic all ag wrdszd ipe hl eilnhls oissmlsof simples decomposi- with mereology posits classical asking of by fiction’ nihilism drawn the be in tion can medial ‘indulge distinction to nihilist the while the precisely, More simple, scale. intermediate (world-sized) maximally under- a posits be nihilism large maximal can simples, point-sized) distinction (presumably small the of Intuitively, terms in nihilisms. stood maximal and medial, ti hoe fcasclmrooyta hr xssauiu eelgclmxmm(o hc U [the ‘U’ which (for maximum mereological unique a exists there that mereology classical of theorem a is It A ‘atom’. of senses is fiction many intended the the speaking strictly So by rules. decomposition obscured any have been itself not have does mereology Classical may nihilism of versions many the Perhaps ntemi etIa suigta h eelgcldmi stedmi fata oceeojcs so objects, concrete actual of domain the is domain mereological the that assuming am I text main the In hsepaaoyecuinagmnsaecmail ihmany with compatible are arguments exclusion explanatory Thus will I follows what in and name, another by monism is nihilism Maximal odsigihtemn om fnhls,Iwl pa fminimal, of speak will I nihilism, of forms many the distinguish To o vr aeilojc ,i stergo fsaeocpe yMa iet n fsbRi n cuibesub-region occupiable t. any at is sub-R sub-R region if and the occupies t, time that at object material M by a occupied exists space there of whatever, region the R is of R if M, object material every For 18 ¼ h aia oceehn.Bti n oneacswdrmrooia oan otiigfurther containing domains mereological wider countenances one if But hunk. concrete maximal the o oano culcnrt bet) h iia iiitposits nihilist minimal The objects). concrete actual of domain a (on 19 n h eilnhls oisette htaemereological are that entities posits nihilist medial the And eei o a nae 20:7]sae hssplmna principle: supplemental this states 75] [2001: Inwagen van how is Here . h cl ftesimples the of scale the 17 V omnes Lost Commonsense IV. x ¼ U 7 x . iia iiimpst minimally posits nihilism Minimal . crazy huhntigi iiimrqie this requires nihilism in nothing though wsarayobjectionable already —was rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From otieo arbitrary of doctrine . 181 Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 h on ntemi eti htoc h iiitalw st aahaeaa lisaotwa ecan we what about pluralism. claims away for paraphrase grounds’ to ‘empirical us Russell’s allows away nihilist paraphrase the to once free that is is monist text the main see, the in point The 23 22 21 ( be can sense common If paraphrases. 20 with paved is Hegel to road The 182 tjs un u,apseir,ta esemn hns hsRsel[99 5 lrfishsve sfollows: as view his clarifies 45] [1959: Russell Thus things. many see we that posteriori, a out, turns just It enjoy may objects non-maximal perhaps Or cannot. hand one is ‘Here begins: which world, external an of ‘proof’ Moore’s the in sentences: Rosenkrantz, two but and with monism Ho ffman dismiss 78], attitude, [1997: substance contemporary of the notion the of of discussion book-length example a representative of course a give To monism. monism. evn spnuhosfrpoete.Snealtemdsoenesmyb indot h ol,the world, the onto pinned be may needs respect. be primary to one talk objects this modes of object in role the of viable primary the paraphrases all seems take monistic least Since I the that at properties. note challenge paraphrase to for both monistic save here, pincushions Sider) concerns Ted as these to address serving cannot owe I I talk. mode which perhaps into of instance, (both For of examples compromise. would These account paraphrases an the of in other feature the or objects one that non-maximal roles certain play objects rv oud l h eecst oimta h al nltc erected. analytics early the that and monism to monistic defences the the all viable. undo objections, equally to prove point further this at Pending seem world. reply of of speak the styles will monist pluralistic of the particles, modes of decomposition. arrangement of the the fiction of the of speaking speak of will Instead monist the composition, of fiction apparent. perceptually ( and that (on obvious voiced limbs intuitively be of will is objection existence limbs the of the then existence deny But nihilist the parts). must medial proper she the recognizing these if persons, of For pain on of much. existence by rejected Medial not the start. be but the accepts here, should from better rejected slightly monism been does have nihilism that is should their extent nihilism it as minimal the tables grounds, say and To objects, chairs who many cases. like are composites those paradigm there mereological that invoke nihilism, typically apparent will minimal perceptually and with obvious Starting intuitively nihilisms. disappeared medial) virtually the single obvious has Russell, intuitively monism a scene. be Since result, contemporary to of a the 1993]. held As from divisions been Moore apparent. has unreal perceptually also objects and and concrete see the many phases 36; of of multiplicity existence in [1959: apparent merely Reality’ the there regard indivisible consisting that not belief do as common-sense I world the things; share separate many ‘I are wrote: famously Russell Thus Hints x ntesadr iwo oimihrtdfo usl,teei ohn roiwogwt monism. with wrong priori a nothing is there Russell, from inherited monism of view standard the On recall to invited is body concerning issue, the deep of a parts raises on paraphrases stand the a of takes viability The commonsense whether doubts who reader The (hard) reader the for Exercise ) h oitcnhls a olwsi ( suit follow can nihilist monistic The I). hteegsi httenhlsi taeiso aahaeadfiction and paraphrase of strategies nihilistic the that is emerges What paraphrases and fictions invoking by responded have nihilists Pluralistic and (minimal pluralistic against force equal has objection same This commonsense. contravenes it that is monism to objection stock the So lrls n eain stkno miia rud,atrcnicn yefta h roiagmnst the to arguments priori a the that myself convincing after grounds, empirical on invalid. taken are is contrary relations and pluralism hr sntigi oi htcnhl st eiebtenmns n pluralism, and monism between decide to us help can that logic in nothing is There things material of plurality a that assume evident shall an We be things. to false. of appears is plurality that monism a something that is with hence there inconsistent and that is exists, namely, it disadvantage: experience, serious of very datum additional an has Monism oahnSchaffer Jonathan o h eodeecs:lo o[ogn&Potr & [Horgan to look exercise: second the for eodeecs vr hard) (very exercise Second n n otmoaymtpyistx ihmr hnapsigmninof mention passing a than more with text contemporary any find : n n otmoaymtpyistx ihasmahtcwr for word sympathetic a with text metaphysics contemporary any find : 20 intrinsicness ueyheciitcdifferences haecceitistic purely  00 e 2001].) Rea 2000; c or x I.Isedo paigo the of speaking of Instead II). oa recombination modal h oeo objects of role the n eei nte’[93 166]. [1993: another’ is here and . . . yown My . . . 22 hl oe a not. may modes while nawyta modes that way a in notlg.Perhaps ontology. in eiini ao of favor in decision 21 23 Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 iiimta omnmlnihilism. minimal to than nihilism udmna ee fntr eedsoee,te nnt ecn ol olne rul h minimal idea the the with trouble scenario’, open longer ‘empirically no an of give would notion now the descent should with infinite works we text then that main being the discovered, in were argument The nature nihilist. of level fundamental 1] h eahsca a obsns ittn h ubro eesof levels 1996: of 24 [Horgan number say’ the can’t dictating armchair. I her business from no question. nature, has or difficult finite metaphysician very is The science a 215]. whether of ‘That’s question with: the to infinite replies Gell-Mann light, this In a in distances short arbitrary to down regression ‘goes infinite which might of theories kind tower field field quantum infinite effective quantum an that in suggest form to renormalization Georgi led of have considerations theory instance, For scenario descent. the covering to respect in preferable is descent. 5 infinite that of follows it 11, – 9 From exclusion the of version monistic existence the embracing only with that by compatible is is ways which argument main of three first the in monism, gains nihilist mereological The no is there then monism. ontology, to way sufficient the all simpler going a to barrier for remaining away paraphrased ea nnt ecn flvl fntr,wt hsc dniyn endless follows: identifying as scientific phrased with be questionable nature, may argument of actually the This levels might structure. There of of in particles. descent layers in infinite indulges out an bottom be everything) will physics that explain assumption to suffice r20] ie htifiiedseti noptbewt iia iiimbtcmail with compatible but nihilism minimal ( with then incompatible should is we that descent follows infinite it nihilism, that maximal Given 2003]. [Schaffer two ‘‘atoms’’, adds: allows then are of, he fundamental—they made truly are are constituents strings uncuttable strings structure. what ‘First, sub-electron of answers: of question possible regression the infinite addressing an Greene, postulates [1989] Dehmelt ic mol raignhls sacnign li bu h culwrd( world actual the about claim contingent a as nihilism treating only am I Since ndfneo ,teeaesrossinichptee htivleinfinite involve that hypotheses scientific serious are there 9, of defence In 1 nnt ecn scnitn ih5. with consistent is descent Infinite 1. with 11. consistent not is descent Infinite 10. ee fmte.Ads nte osblt,...i ht[tig]aeoemore one are [strings] the that of is . . finer understanding . onion. possibility, a cosmic our another the constituting so in time microconstituents layer And smaller every matter. yet of that find level us we taught deepens, universe has surely [H]istory .Ifiiedseti neprclyoe scenario. open empirically an is descent Infinite 9. ntetus es fteacetGek’ owhich To Greeks’. ancient the of sense truest the in , oepstv credence positive some uta just . . . 24 .IfiieDescent Infinite V. nnt descent infinite eiso aeswtoted 18:456]. [1989: end’ without layers of series eei paribus ceteris otecamta hr culyi nifiiedescent infinite an is actually there that claim the to hti,peie1(h particles (the 1 premise is, That . give ) rae vrl credence overall greater rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From x ) utalwthat allow must I I), 19:11–2] – 141 [1999: omaximal to 183 if a Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 esrpout ftewv-ucin ftercmoetsystems. argument The component forthcoming]. follows: Arntzenius 1986; their as phrased 1999; [Teller be of properties Healey may holistic 56; wave-functions emergent, 1998: feature Maudlin the thus systems of Entangled products tensor 26 25 ecn scmail ihKmsvrino h xlso argument. exclusion the of version Kim’s with compatible is descent eeso eelgclsrcuet oi,admynwseko e idigsmlsa being-at- as simples middling her of speak now may and posit, to structure mereological of levels nietenhls gi o‘nug ntefito’o lsia eelg with mereology classical has of theory fiction’ the That in ‘indulge decomposition. to again nihilist be the might invite One The para- have. monistic ( descent run: might the infinite would world precisely, phrase her, the More For that everywhere-ish. intact. aspect limitlessly-divisible-ish is one ontology just nihilist’s represents maximal The exists. drain would ontology Her pit. recognize. bottomless to a be nihilist down will minimal away there the Indeed, for everything. explain minima to no suffice could that particles simple h eodrseti hc h eelgclnhls an yembracing argument by exclusion the gains of version nihilist with monistic compatible mereological the is only the that is which monism in existence respect second The be cannot image. that nihilist but minimal image, nihilist any by maximal by represented is its be represented descent can and infinite exists. that mereology that world, still classical actual is U the both emerges for entity What scenario minima. maximum open no empirically unique an nihilist are the there maximal In models) gunk model. with all classical the But in the on while (as maximum models mereological model, the gunky is classical that entity the the posits on by descent minima infinite an mereological ( represent Recall can models. mereologist such classical The parts. proper etrso unu ehnc wihegnestennlclt eut)is results) non-locality distinguishing the of the engenders presence of the (which one mechanics Indeed, quantum of properties. composite features holistic Instead feature their arrangements. of might spatiotemporal properties systems their component with the together from derivative parts, are systems composite of 184 aahae eddfrmns,oewneswysewudrss on l h way. the of all sort going the resist accepts would nihilist the she once why Though wonders point). one this monism, for for Trogdon needed Kelly and paraphrases Merricks Trenton to (thanks h eilnhls ih sr h oitcprprs.Ta s h eilnhls tl a intermediary infinite has still of nihilist possibility medial the the is, whether That of paraphrase. monistic discussion the related usurp might for nihilist 2003] medial The ffer Scha 2003; Kim 2003; [Block See optteagmn rmifiiedseti nte ih,w might we light, another in descent infinite from argument the put To still world the then descent, infinite an is actually there if 11, of defence In no are there then descent, infinite an is actually there if 10, of defence In 4 mretpoete r ossetwt 5. with consistent are properties Emergent 1. with 14. consistent not are properties Emergent 13. properties. emergent produces entanglement Quantum 12. oahnSchaffer Jonathan nage systems entangled mretproperties emergent 8 r x is-at- U ) I)ta h iia iiitpst niista are that entities posits nihilist minimal the that III) I mretProperties Emergent VI. 25 r hs aefntosare wave-functions whose , divisible. gunky hti,1asmsta h properties the that assumes 1 is, That . oesi hc vrtighas everything which in models 26 not eial as derivable r divisible Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 ntebsso ievcoso z-spin: system, entanglement. of two-particle quantum a eigenvectors for of for states basis account entangled the two to in following enough the consider rich Thus not the is from arrangements derived be chairwise. and whole- arranged cannot The over particles a and that sense. the something precise that about information is very properties information assuming new a chair in that, contains intrinsic the chairwise, is chair-system system, arranged the means particles entangled the an that on above forms What supervene chair parts. given not their of do arrangements wholes entangled opeeydtrie h oa rpriso h at n their and holism’ parts substantial the a of exhibits writes: Maudlin properties physics And 26]. quantum local [1999: Therefore, . the . . relations determines completely ean pn hr ilrmi neprclyoe cnrota h aia iiitcncvrbtthe but cover can scenario nihilist holism maximal the the that as two wanted. scenario was be long what open would if As was empirically there even which systems. case, that an can’t, any holistic is remain nihilist In follow and will minimal between. would there relations hold that to open, entanglement relations all there remains scenarios: alleged that introduced, these is open successfully for here be empirically problem relata The of could features where bosons. number relations number’ of definite thuswise’ ‘particle entanglement numbers a where definite entangled be theory, between are always field and There superpositions won’t quantum state. allowing tablewise quantum within operator, associated especially an arranged the approach, as of this cient coe ffi ‘particles correlation with result.) the of problems for either some placeholder talk finding a as of with functions chance ‘thuswise’ tablewise’ .5 are a arranged both is or ‘particles there up, of are that chance both entails .5 either a also ( z-spin: is it there in that rule, correlated entails are Born’s also particles with it two rule, conjunction the Born’s (In that with down. entails conjunction (In S2 up. result.) second either the finding and down is first the 28 27 correlations. their in er diff which states, different empirically are These words, other In whole the of description the only the and ‘In is states notes: it Esfeld intrinsic entanglement, Thus the the components. of from their avoiding case derivable of to relations not respect spatiotemporal coefficients), in correlation preferable the emergence. is spurn 5 will physics that that follows assumption false it empirically 14, – 12 From rnei h nrni ttso h atce rtheir or particles the of The whole. states the difference. intrinsic in this recognize difference the cannot a nihilist only in minimal is There difference arrangements. no spatiotemporal is there nageetrelations entanglement rne h iia iiitmgttyt nrdc e udmna relations fundamental new introduce to try might nihilist minimal the difference, this or for down, second account the To and up is first the either z-spin: in anti-correlated are particles two the that entails S1 ndfneo 3 h iia iiitsotlg fprilsadtheir and particles of ontology nihilist’s minimal the 13, of defence In ndfneo 2 nage unu ytm oti e nomto (in information new contain systems quantum entangled 12, of defence In 2 1/ S2: 1/ S1: erdcdt hs fisprs rt hs fisprstgte ihtheir with together parts its of those to or parts, always relations, its cannot of whole complex spatiotemporal those a to of state reduced physical be the then, theory, quantum In netgtosi itr sater htcnan nieiial holism. ineliminable an contains that theory a is history in investigations Ö Ö [z-up 2 [z-up 2 lnsd e ptoeprlrltos h ol hnpeual elc akof talk replace presumably then would She relations. spatiotemporal her alongside ) i i eelgclspreinefails supervenience mereological 1 1 [z-up [z-down i 2 7 i 2 h euto h otitniescientific intensive most the of result The . . . 1/ 7 Ö 1/ [z-down 2 Ö [z-up 2 i i 1 1 [z-down [z-down i i h nrni rprisof properties intrinsic The . 2 2 28 rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From 19:56] [1998: which . . . 27 But 185 Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 186 aspect. 29 she because emergence such with for mereology account three-atom classical ( the can U of of countenances mereologist version fiction’ emergent classical the an empirically in consider ( Only model to the ‘indulge and monism. to for decomposition, to again account not is nihilist alternative nihilism can medial no Even nihilism universe. have entangled vast of enough. one to of version scenario looks likely maximal nihilist the the Thus h aia iiitiaeo h mretvrino h he-tmmodel three-atom the of version emergent sufficient. the is of image nihilist maximal the and ,wihhsan has which U, say bet.Tewrdi nsm a igeojc’[98 8.I hsvein, this In 28]. [1998: object’ single a way some the notes: in in Gribbin is particles di world other Toraldo The with be to Thus objects. interacted out turns has entanglement. world particle the for past, any suffices ‘Since Big (the says: interaction atom Francia primordial such the of and explosion the Bang), in begins universe The system. instance, For have. here-and-there-ishly. might world S1-ish the be entangled that might contains aspect it one world is the that If then entanglement. subsystems, quantum support to enough hnteewl lob ol-ae xlnto f5 ned tis 1, it per world-explanation. Indeed, as a 5. explanation of into particle explanation particle-explanation a world-based is the a there translate turn be if to to also invoke since might will trivial it, nihilist there doubt With minimal then I the cient. insuffi that tide? scenarios thus the parts. other is its there of the Are sum model the of than three-atom more image is the whole nihilistic the of minimal emergence version The arrangement. emergent spatiotemporal their n ih loiaiea mretvrino h he-tmmdli hc nitreit node, intermediate an which in model three-atom the of version emergent an imagine also might One optteagmn rmeegnei nte ih,w ih niethe invite might we light, another in emergence from argument the put To ned hr srao otikta h nvrei n atentangled vast one is universe the that think to reason rich is is there world Indeed, the of ontology nihilist’s maximal the 14, of defence In steeaycmeigsnei hc a emr luil hn5? than plausible more be may 1 which in sense competing any there Is orbd.W r smc at fasnl ytma h w htn flying photons two experiment. the as Aspect system the up single of a make heart of now the parts that of much particles out as the through are with We back interacted body. right and your proximity particles close Bang other in Virtually Big that jostled with particles the of interactions. interactions collections to of in further time, up involved made to is a been feel of and together have parts touch sense and responds see some we in which everything remain interaction system, an in single together were that Particles r y otisa mretpoet.Temxmlnhls mg osntcontain not does image nihilist maximal The property. emergent an contains , .S htvroesol a bu h mretpoete of properties emergent the about say should one whatever So ). oahnSchaffer Jonathan x I) nwihtetpnd U otisa mretpoet.The property. emergent an contains (U) node top the which in III), 29 r ihapc eeadteeihy(hr hr’ad‘hr’aetefitv oain of locations fictive the are ‘there’ and ‘here’ (where here-and-there-ishly aspect -ish u h iia iiitol countenances only nihilist minimal the But ne alia inter ned h atce htmk pm oyonce body my up make that particles the Indeed, . . . .Temxmlnhls locutnne ,so U, countenances also nihilist maximal The ). nonseparable noidvda n independent and individual into r a eprprsdvaU’s via paraphrased be can x r , u tde contain does it but , y 18:229] [1984: and , z and , r -ish x Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 ute icsino h mrec/umrec asymmetry.) emergence/submergence the of discussion further r[forthcoming: Schaffer (See properties. submergent can there be (in why reason downwards cannot the sink there is Intrinsic always intrinsicness but bent. to not is respect properties do that with but leg emergent asymmetry a mereological hierarchy, be having the This mereological of emergence). has property the of intrinsic leg case through the the upwards my has the rise body if for specifically my always spatiotemporal illustrate: whole, then because, properties the bent, its To is of being property property. of and This intrinsic property having-a-proper-part-with-such-an-intrinsic whole an properties. intrinsic corresponds of the submergent there which property part, in of be proper scenario intrinsic properties a a cannot of describe There intrinsic property to intrinsic ‘emergence’, fails). the of every converse supervenience on the mereological as supervene used top-down not being here do is (‘submergence’ which arrangement parts proper of considerations: laws. operative the complication. simplifying this in ignore advantage the must have I will schemes text explanatory main the the of one In that possible is it So 31 30 arrangements and properties, For number, particles. the the input as of takes translation The h oiti ipyfloigsc ehdlgclcnieain oterutmt end. ultimate their to considerations methodological such following simply is monist The unu nageet.Tenhls a aeti euta itr.Frit For victory. as is a nihilism world, (such as appearances, phenomena the result 5 mechanistic despite this emergent that, take atomistic, premise and shows may an descent nihilist nihilist’s The infinite just entanglement). for maximal quantum not allowing for also The in allowing physicist. but in century plausible nineteenth more worldview mechanistic a atomistic, the of represents 1 premise nihilist’s minimal oim o htcudb ipe,o oeeeat hnaone-object a than elegant, more or simpler, be could Why what For suffice? monism. particles of the sums when composite necessity? posit demands, without Why entities nihilist redundant 7. multiply explanatory minimal and 3 of the per dismissal particles, as nihilist’s This entities, ontology. the sufficient epiphenomenal yet in and simple implicit a provides existence is it motivation that embracing motivation main is by The all, ontology. after gains sufficient nihilism, simplest nihilist for the mereological reaching by the is that monism way third The ecn n mrec.Btsc itr a nyb andb going by earned be only can victory a such But monistic. emergence. and descent ie hnalo hsifraincn(rval)b ersne natwo- a scenarios, in covering represented conclude to space- be would respect dimensional (trivially) I with can So four particles that, information space. a ten this configuration in have of hundred-and-forty-dimensional parameters we all then physical if time, fundamental instance, six For with space. configuration dimensional ragmn of arrangement hsDr 20:3]mtvtsnhls s‘eal esnbe ae ntefloigmethodological following the on based reasonable’ ‘default as nihilism motivates 36] [2001: Dorr Thus translation. the in preserved be will explanation particle the backing laws the that obvious not is it Caveat: eeoerfrewnee hte hr a be can there whether wondered referee one Here in nooycliae in culminates ontology sufficient simplest the for quest nihilistic The the together: emergence and descent infinite from arguments the Putting qa,oeogtt eiv httewrdi ipe lc,rte hnacmlctdoe u o hr obe to there for But one. respect. complicated certain a a than in rather complicated, be place, to simpler being world a things the other is for principle: world is general things more the a among that on relations believe think, mereological I to interesting rests, ought things composite one any equal, aren’t there that presumption The z iesos h rnlto upt ol nan in world a outputs translation the dimensions, x I.OtlgclSimplicity Ontological VII. atce with particles 31 umretproperties submergent y oiae 1 dominates 5 rprisi spatiotemporal a in properties is optbewt ohinfinite both with compatible hc ol eitiscproperties intrinsic be would which , rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From . 30 x .]for 2.2] xyz 187 - Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 g n htteei no is there that and offing, the in sufficient ontology simplest the one-object is monism rival that Given no follows sufficient. it be is ontology, can monistic there monism ontology. the than in that simpler elsewhere ontology sufficient, complexity no compensating is required, is monism something of that existence the that Given 32 ( commitments Moore ‘commonsense’ and the Russell by accepted largely century, recommended metaphysics twentieth the analytic dominate to because come course, of would, Pluralism ontology? 188 htnhls umntsi oimi optbewt iiim with nihilism, with compatible is monism in culminates ontology. nihilism Parmenidean many that a than to rather lead world-atom, ontological principles vast for Occamite one of Our quest ontology particles. the monism. an wee and to existence is argument in lead exclusion culminates simplicity explanatory nihilism the mereological that Where argued have I culminates nihilism empirically Thus paraphrase more monism. thereby. cover simplicity also in can greater and may gain lose, and to she scenarios nothing open commitments, has She such pluralism. her away away paraphrase to herself im)o rud fprioy[2000: parsimony of grounds on vism’) i’ta lrls involves: defending pluralism for that apologize affair’ to an need of a sort felt gothic who muddled, 1908, ‘turbid, from the James of words the aahaesrtge o the for strategies paraphrase o h oe obe to modes the for o bu eoojc nooy HwhreadCres19;BresadRsn19]offer 1997] Rosen and Burgess 1995; Cortens and [Hawthorne ontology? zero-object a about How l fti ean eta nnhls tef hti,teargument the is, That itself. nihilism on neutral remains this of All olw ht hnvrw n oeatiue rqaiis hr sncsaiysm hn rsbtnet efudfor found be to It substance qualities. or or thing attributes some no necessarily is possesses to. there nothingness qualities, belong light: or to natural attributes some the them find by we known whenever well that, very follows something notice should We to system a first offer. with your I time mitigate as be may programme some classical familiarity a it more lived such the upon little at have a surprise reaction Perhaps to must merits. first of one its unworthy accustomed your were appreciate But ideas such if are if refutation. as excused turbid, shoulders explicit who the be a little of shrug with you is may contempt—a and absolute It reality of outline sweeping appearance. of Those a sorry constructions without nobility. a affair, pluralistic an but the inner pictorial of of offers pictures, sort way rationalizing gothic profess the muddled, these I in all which intellectual with and empiricism compared at clean aimed As something and definite, world structure. and pure the aesthetically intellectually to always only rate ascribing or any elevated first at morally the were were they for neat, these is conceptions from apparently whether orderly world and had and the tangle; economical which sensible ever with substituted litter have has philosophers the They up pluralism minded, filled. cleaning at spiritually radical aimed or always countenance have materialistically little Whether how philosophers. curious is It oahnSchaffer Jonathan 32 nti en ognadPotr and Horgan vein, this In oe of modes xseta nihilist existential nti en ecre 18:16 writes: 196] [1984: Descartes vein, this In . II ocuigFragments Concluding VIII. u tsest eta h xsec of existence the that me to seems it But . x .] eei a ewrhrecalling worth be may it Here 2.4]. x V.Btoc h iiitallows nihilist the once But IV).  ru o oim(‘blobjecti- monism for argue c something 18:650] [1987: srequired, is Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 n h ol l xs,btmrl sageae fprils eaeheaps. are [forthcoming]. I We and particles. You of aggregates parts. as ultimate merely many but the exist, are all world prior) the (ultimately and basic is what so priority of question ai) h hrb nie h usino hc sbsc hsarises the Thus For basic. part. to is prior is which whole deny the of or amongst question redundancy to of the pain is invites (on basic thereby sceptic be She can basic). both the that denies to but does part, reply rendered) The just ontology. (as 7. commonsense exclusion methodology with and the cohere reject commonsense to 3 since is nihilist denying fragmentation, the to by reply to The reply argument sceptic. simultaneous a the yielding and restriction, nihilist motivated the and minimal a is This of plurality a is there a whether seem screams to too ontology respect They commonsense with nowhere. objects, from So concrete come commonsense. not of do it After part but principles needless. planets; Occamite as and such our dismiss rocks all, that families, principles and methodological embraces persons also chairs, and tables nihilism. embraces monistic and anti-nihilism principled pluralistic any between is And decide there rival. that to her denying for way equipollence, embarrassment maintain anti- deeper might The a sceptic the theory. as the her Thus monism for dispute. parade advance further might whole a nihilist the as monism about trumpet scepticism might nihilist with even and anti-nihilism, 33 ohe.Ipr ihatreodsgeto o o h ninhls might anti-nihilist the how for suggestion threefold a with proceed. part I heed. to whispers methodology oepasbeta n caiepicpe otecontrary. the to principles Occamite any far than being as plausible stridency, Moorean more with ontology commonsense uphold should niisaepoel ruddi hti ai.Wa sitlrbeis intolerable is What basic. is redundant what the basic. in is provided what grounded tolerable in redundancy properly is are Redundancy entities derivative. merely are our of all and I, and you world, the it? deny is could There Who exist. parts. both various part and whole ninhls st etitOcmsRzrs hti nyapist htis what to applies only it that so Razor Occam’s basic: restrict to is anti-nihilist is redundancy such but exists, what be in a may is 7 redundancy there and 3 For that is mitigated. (so blunted There be must Razor denied). Occam’s that be to argument hsi nedda atn lms eodtepeetdsuso,twrsteve eeoe nSchaffer in developed view the towards discussion, present the beyond glimpse parting a as intended is This h ninhls h ol aeti diercgie ohwoeand whole both recognizes advice this take would who anti-nihilist The Commonsense commonsense. of fragmentation a is emerges What hti eddi rnildwyt eiewihvieo commonsense of voice which decide to way principled a is needed is What utn h rttoprso h ugsintgte,m diet the to advice my together, suggestion the of parts two first the Putting exclusion the of lesson the take should anti-nihilist the think I Second, entities). multiply not Do 33 is,Itikteat-iiitsol eyeuplec.She equipollence. deny should anti-nihilist the think I First, basic hc steqeto fwehrpr spirt whole, to prior is part whether of question the is which , niiswtotncsiy(u epyusl oderivative to yourself help (but necessity without entities no hierarchy . roiypluralist priority sm hnsaebsc n oethings some and basic, are things —some ati ro owoe and whole, to prior is part yes rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From hl commonsense while , fcourse Of the 189 Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 eml,Hn 99 rtn electron, . . . Triton, 1989. Hans Dehmelt, or in20.Mrik nteEitneo ua Organisms, Human of Existence the University. on Princeton Merricks diss, PhD 2003. Everything, of Cian Simplicity Dorr, The 2001. Cian Dorr, 34 1984. John Gribbin, Rene Descartes, 1976. Roderick Chisholm, 1997. Rosen Gideon and John Burgess, in Metaphysics, Quantum Elementary 1996. David Albert, Massachusetts-Amherst of University as merely but shards. exist, are all We parts world. various our the and of I fragments and You whole. ultimate one the For ninhls a umnt npirt monism. so priority monism, basic in existence sufficient culminate in simplest may speculative culminates following the anti-nihilism nihilism the mereological more for with as is part quest just I whole the Thus suggestion: a the whole. And basic scenario such parts. one the a favours such in that such ontology of shows in because sum Emergence because the basic, basic. basic, than be be be infinite to can’t can’t parts Thus parts ultimate parts ultimate monism. no ultimate are priority there the to scenario that anti-nihilism equally shows will from monism descent existence arguments to as nihilism from serve arguments the For monism. atr oad18.Mn-n Identity, Many-One 1988. Donald Baxter, ent,Jnta 1984. Jonathan Bennett, 190 ahs nvriyo onciu,WsenWsigo nvriy n h aicAPA. Pacific the and University, Washington Western Connecticut, for of University referees Aarhus, the Trogdon, Kelly aton,Jh n nrwCres19.TwrsOtlgclNihilism, Ontological Towards 1995. Cortens Andrew and John Hawthorne, ogn on1996. John Horgan, ree ra 1999. Brian Greene, Mind, of Philosophy the and Holism Quantum 1999. Michael Esfeld, cieQatmFedTere,in Theories, Field Quantum Effective 1989. Howard Georgi, rsrn,D .1997. M. D. Armstrong, lc,Nd20.D aslPwr ri Away? Drain Powers Causal Do 2003. Ned Block, manuscript. Frank Arntzenius, a,Jsu n ayS oekat 1997. Rosenkrantz S. Gary and Joshua Hoffman, Physics, in Nonseparability and Holism 1999. Richard Healey, ogn eec n Matjaz and Terence Horgan, ae,Wlim18.APuaitcUies:HbetLcue tMnhse olg ntePresent the on College Manchester at Lectures Hibbert Universe: Pluralistic A 1987. William James, hnst er ogn e aksa,Mt crt,TetnMrik,TdSdr rdSkow, Brad Sider, Ted Merricks, Trenton McGrath, Matt Markosian, Ned Horgan, Terry to Thanks ytidadfia ugsint h ninhls st nos priority endorse to is anti-nihilist the to suggestion final and third My oahnSchaffer Jonathan uadMroh abig:Cmrde abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge Cambridge: Cambridge: Murdoch, Dugald cdm fSciences of Academy Mathematics Books. abig nvriyPes 4 57. – 446 Press: University Cambridge Research Theory 38. ulses 7 84. – 277 Publishers: Appraisal plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/ 65. iuto nPiooh,in Philosophy, in Situation 70. – 249 Publishing. Addison-Wesley MA: Reading rs:65–819. – 625 Press: roiymonist priority e ok admHouse. Random York: New , d ae .Csig rhrSok n hlo odti,Drrct lwrAcademic Kluwer Dordrecht: Goldstein, Sheldon and Stock, Arthur Cushing, T. James ed. , 7 1 18. – 711 67: ´ 1984. xod lrno Press. Clarendon Oxford: , h n fSine aigteLmt fKoldei h wlgto h cetfi Age Scientific the of Twilight the in Knowledge of Limits the Facing Science: of End The h lgn nvre uesrns idnDmnin,adteQetfrteUltimate the for Quest the and Dimensions, Hidden Superstrings, Universe: Elegant The nSac fShoigrsCt unu hsc n Reality and Physics Quantum Cat: Schrodinger’s of Search In hlspia rtnso ecre 1 Descartes of Writings Philosophical td fSioasEthics Spinoza’s of Study A ol fSae fAffairs of States of World A esnadObject and Person 6 68–9. – 8618 86: ˇ Potr tagrta Fiction than Stranger ila ae:Wiig 92–1910 – 1902 Writings James: William ( utaainJunlo Philosophy of Journal Australasian  00 lbetvs n nietCorrespondence, Indirect and Blobjectivism 2000. c x I hl spirt at n hti ai sthe is basic is what and part, to prior is whole II) ujc ihN bet taeisfrNmnlsi nepeainof Interpretation Nominalistic for Strategies Object: No with Subject A cosmon . . . hlspia Papers Philosophical aSleI:Oe or Press. Court Open IL: Salle La , References 4 . usac:IsNtr n Existence and Nature Its Substance: hlspyadPeoeooia Research Phenomenological and Philosophy An : . . . nin:HcetPbihn Company. Publishing Hackett Indiana: , . abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: , nnt Regression?, Infinite and , Stoothoff Robert Cottingham, John ed. , oma ehnc n unu hoy An Theory: Quantum and Mechanics Bohmian h e Physics New The tnodEccoei fPhilosophy of Encyclopedia Stanford 7 9 216. – 193 17: ora fCncosesStudies Consciousness of Journal d rc ulc,NwYr:Viking York: New Kuklick, Bruce ed. , 34 n uine tteUiest of University the at audiences and , hlspyadPhenomenological and Philosophy eevd uut2005 August Received: eie:Jnay2006 January Revised: hlspia Studies Philosophical d alDve,Cambridge: Davies, Paul ed. , rceig fteNational the of Proceedings e ok Bantam York: New , odn Routledge. London: , at Philosophica Facta 7 3 50. – 133 67: : 9 4 – 143 79: 5 :2 – 23 6: http:// 2: , Downloaded By: [Australian National Univ] At: 02:16 23 September 2007 aksa,Ndfrhoig etitdCmoiin in Composition, Restricted forthcoming. Ned Markosian, crt,Mt 05 oOjcs oProblem? No Objects, No 2005. in Matt Mechanics, McGrath, Quantum in Whole and Part 1998. Tim Maudlin, Uses, Its and Individuals of 1991. Calculus David The Lewis, 1940. Goodman Nelson and S. H. Leonard, i,Jewn20.Bokn aslDang n te aneac hrswt etlCausation, Mental with Chores Maintenance Other and Drainage Causal in Blocking Causation, 2003. Mental Jaegwon with Kim, Troubles Nonreductivist’s The 1993. Jaegwon Kim, od .E .1957. M. E. C. Joad, ontn ak18.I hr rbe bu Persistence? About Problem a There Is 1987. Mark Johnston, r oahn20.I hr udmna Level?, Monism, Fundamental 2007. a Jonathan There Schaffer, Is 2003. Jonathan Schaffer, 2001. Trenton Merricks, ercs rno 03 Replies, 2003. Trenton Merricks, ie,Tedr 07 Parthood, 2007. Theodore Sider, Monism, Lotze’s Reply: Whole. 1897. the S. of C. Priority F. The Schiller, Monism: forthcoming. Jonathan Schaffer, in Relations, Internal and External 1993. E. G. Moore, oad iFaca ilao19.AWrdo niiulOjcs in Objects? Individual of World A 1998. Giuliano Francia, di Toraldo Mechanics, Quantum and Holism Relational 1986. Paul Teller, in , Logical 1959. Bertrand Russell, a nae,Ptr20.TeDcrn fAbtayUdtce at,in Parts, Undetached Arbitrary of Doctrine The 2001. Peter Inwagen, Van 1990. Peter Simples, Inwagen, and Van Plurals 2004. Gabriel Uzquiano, 1987. Peter Simons, Overdetermination? About Bad So What’s 2003. Theodore Sider, in Fiction, a as Composition 2002. Dorr Cian and Gideon Rosen, e,Mcal20.Hwt ea lai Monist, Eleatic an be to How 2001. Michael Rea, bet nMdr Physics Modern Blackwell. in Basil Objects Oxford: Zimmerman, Dean and Sider, Theodore Hawthorne, Logic sp.:17–35. – 107 (supp.): hlspyadPeoeooia Research Phenomenological and Philosophy Essays Philosophical Selected ulsig 1–50. – 31 Publishing: monism/ 7 1 26. – 719 67: 1–9. Physics – 21 Modern in Objects Quantum 81. – 71 37: 74. – 151 Blackwell: Basil Oxford: Gale, Richard sasi Metaphysics in Essays odn oteg:7 105. – 79 Routledge: London: :4 55. – 45 5: 4 at fClasses of Parts at:ASuyi Ontology in Study A Parts: ud oPhilosophy to Guide bet n Persons and Objects aeilBeings Material abig:CmrdeUiest rs:7 94. – 75 Press: University Cambridge Cambridge: , d ln atlai rneo J rneo nvriyPes 6–60. – 46 Press: University Princeton NJ: Princeton Castellani, Elena ed. , hlspia Review Philosophical hlspyadPeoeooia Research Phenomenological and Philosophy abig:CmrdeUiest rs:36–57. – 336 Press: University Cambridge Cambridge: , tnodEccoei fPhilosophy of Encyclopedia Stanford xod ai Blackwell. Basil Oxford: , e ok oe Publications. Dover York: New , d ln atlai rneo J rneo nvriyPress: University Princeton NJ: Princeton Castellani, Elena ed. , taaN:CrelUiest Press. University Cornell NY: Ithaca , xod lrno Press. Clarendon Oxford: , Monist oia Positivism Logical xod lrno Press. Clarendon Oxford: , hlspia Review Philosophical utaainJunlo Philosophy of Journal Australasian 7 5 76. – 151 67: hlspia Perspectives Philosophical 7 2 51. – 429 87: .E or:Slce Writings Selected Moore: E. G. 1:5 91. – 51 116: Nouˆs otmoayDbtsi Metaphysics in Debates Contemporary rts ora o h hlspyo Science of Philosophy the for Journal British 7 9 517. – 498 37: nepeigBde:CascladQuantum and Classical Bodies: Interpreting rceig fteAittla Society Aristotelian the of Proceedings hlspyadPeoeooia Research Phenomenological and Philosophy d .J yr e ok Macmillan York: New Ayer, J. A. ed. , h lcwl ud oMetaphysics to Guide Blackwell The :6 4. – 62 6: hlspia Review Philosophical . 5 nepeigBde:Cascland Classical Bodies: Interpreting nooy dniy n Modality: and Identity, Ontology, http://plato.stanford.edu/enried/ rmNhls oMonism to Nihilism From 5 2 51. – 129 15: 7 2 44. – 727 67: uevnec n Mind: and Supervenience 3 5 86. – 457 83: d hmsBaldwin, Thomas ed. , ora fSymbolic of Journal . d John ed. , ed. , 191 61