Skip to content

Natural Science

Ingvar Johannson

Pages 371 - 379

1. Mereological sciences. Claims which belong to formal mereology are often (just as in geometry) illustrated by means of concrete examples and the border between formal and applied mereology is not explicitly discussed. In this article, however, the distinction between formal mereology and applied mereology will be strictly adhered to. Formal mereology is, like mathematics and traditional formal logic, a purely formal discipline. In itself it does not tell us anything about particular things, events, and processes in the spatiotemporal world. However, its central notion, ‘part’ (P) or ‘proper part’ (PP), contains more than merely syntactical content, in contradistinction to the central notions of formal logic, the logical constants. In this sense, mereology seems to be more akin to mathematics than to formal logic.

1Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University

1 Baker, L. R., (2000), Persons and Bodies. A Constitution View, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2 Baker, L. R., (2007), The Metaphysics of Everyday Life, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3 Casati, R.; Varzi, A. C., (1994), Holes and Other Superficialities, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

4 Casati, R.; Varzi, A. C., (1999), Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation, Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.

5 Donnelly, M., (2011), “Using Mereological Principles to Support Metaphysics,” The Philosophical Quarterly 61, 225-246.

6 Rosse, C. and Mejino, J. L. V., (2007), “The Foundational Model of Anatomy”, in A. Burger et al., eds. Anatomy Ontologies for Bioinformatics: Principles and Practice, London: Springer, 59-117; also (accessed May 2014).

7 GO 2014, Gene Ontology: from (accessed May 2014).

8 Healey, R., (2008) (retrieved on Dec 10, 2008), “Holism and Nonseparability in Physics”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. N. (ed.),

9 Johansson, I., (2004), “On the Transitivity of the Parthood Relations”, in H. Hochberg and K. Mulligan, eds. Relations and Predicates, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 161–181.

10 Johansson, I., (2006a), “Formal Mereology and Ordinary Language – Reply to Varzi”, Applied Ontology 1, 157-161.

11 Johansson, I., (2006b), “Inference Rules, Emergent Wholes and Supervenient Properties,” tripleC 4(2), 127-135,

12 Johansson, I., (2006c), “Identity Puzzles and Supervenient Identities,” Metaphysica 7: 7-33.

13 Johansson, I., (2008), “Partonomy”, in Johansson I.; Lynøe, N., Medicine & Philosophy. A Twenty-First Century Introduction, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 428-434.

14 Koslicki, K., (2008), The Structure of Objects, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15 Rescher, N, (1955), “Axioms for the Part Relation,” Philosophical Studies 6: 8-11.

16 Simons, P. M., (1987), Parts. A Study in Ontology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

17 Smith, B., (2008), “The Benefits of Realism: A Realist Logic with Applications”, in Munn, K.; Smith, B. (eds.), Applied Ontology. An Introduction, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 109-124.

18 Varzi, A. C, (2006), “A Note on the Transitivity of Parthood,” Applied Ontology 1: 141-146.

19 Varzi, A. C, (2014) (retrieved on Feb 24, 2014), “Mereology”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, E. N. (ed.),


Export Citation