Skip to content

Homeomerous and Automerous

Johanna Seibt

Pages 255 - 262

The ancient Greek adjective ‘óμoιoμερής’ (homoeomerēs) – literally: ‘of like parts’ – and the associated noun ‘óμoιoμέρεια’ (homoeoméreia) – literally: ‘likepartedness’ – seem to have their first systematic use in Aristotle. Mourelatos (1998, p.336f) notes, however, that both “occur – probably tendentiously, under the influence of Aristotle’s usage – also in our ancient sources for a pre-Aristotelian philosopher, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, with reference to the constituent “things” (chremata) involved in the latter’s scheme of universal mixture”. The Greek terms are transliterated into English as 'homoeomerous' (or simplified as 'homeomerous' or even 'homomerous') and 'homoeomery' (or 'homeomereity'), respectively.

1Department for Philosophy and the History of Ideas, University Aarhus

1 Barker, S.; Dowe, P., (2003), “Paradoxes of Multi-Location”, Analysis 63: 106-14.

2 Barker, S., Dowe, P., (2005), “Endurance is Paradoxical”, Analysis 65: 69-74.

3 Beebee, H.; Rush, M., (2003), “Non-Paradoxical Multi-location”, Analysis 63: 311–17.

4 Bunt, H., (198)5, Mass Terms and Model Theoretic Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

5 Cartwright, H., (1970), “Quantities”, The Philosophical Review 79: 25-42.

6 Dowty, D., (197)9, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Dordrecht: Reidel.

7 Galton, A., (198)4, The Logic of Aspect: An Axiomatic Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8 Kearns, S., (2011), “Can a Thing be Part of Itself?”, American Philosophical Quarterly 48: 87-93.

9 Laycock, H., (1979), “Theories of Matter”, in Pelletier 1979: 89-120.

10 Laycock, H., (200)6, Words Without Objects – Semantics, Ontology, and Logic, Oxford University Press.

11 Lucy, J., (199)2, Grammatical Categories and Cognition: a Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12 Mourelatos, A., (1978), “Events, Processes, and States”, Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 415-434. Reprinted with corrections in Tedeschi P. J.; Zaenen, A. (eds.), Tense and Aspect, New York, Academic Press, 1981: 191-212.

13 Mourelatos, A., (1998), “Homoeomereity”, in: Audi, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 336-337.

14 Quine, W.v.O., (1)960, Word and Object, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15 Rapp, C., (1992), “Ähnlichkeit, Analogie und Homonymie bei Aristoteles”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 46: 526-544.

16 Roberts, J. H., (1979), “Activities and performances considered as objects and events”, Philosophical Studies, 35: 171-185.

17 Seibt, J., (1995), “Individuen als Prozesse: Zur prozess-ontologischen Revision des Substanzparadigmas”, Logos 2: 352-38

18 Seibt, J., (1997), “Existence in Time: From Substance to Process“, in: Faye, J.; Scheffler, U.; Urs, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Time. Boston Studies in Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 143-182.

19 Seibt, J., (2004), “Free Process Theory: Towards a Typology of Processes”, Axiomathes 14: 23-57.

20 Seibt, J., (2)005, General Processes – A Study in Ontological Category Construction, Habilitationsschrift at the University of Konstanz. Chapter 2 and 3 republished as Activities, Berlin: DeGruyter).

21 Seibt, J., (2015a), “Ontological Scope and Linguistic Diversity: Are There Universal Categories?”, The Monist 98: 318-343.


Export Citation