[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[Angrboda]

I'm not wedded to mereological nihilism, but I think the objections to it are overly simplistic. It may turn out that the existence of objects is like many things in philosophy -- we suspect that there's an explanation which rescues the idea of an object, but so far it hasn't been found. We have similar problems with things like how to define knowledge. At the same time, I think mereological nihilism points to legitimate problems in creating a "plain sense" mereology in which parts, wholes, and objects clearly exist. I see analogies such as the triangle and the meaning of words which Neo suggests as interesting questions more than as legitimate objections. Language in general tends to be filled with vagueness and indeterminacy. Just like picking out objects, many things and meanings don't have clear determinate boundaries. Maybe there's a fallacy of the beard situation in which distinctions can be made regardless of whether boundaries can be identified. Or maybe an inherent vagueness in our mental representations means there are no determinate meanings, that triangles are just an ideal which our brains try to pick out from reality. I'm of the impression that it's more an operational problem. That our minds aren't built for hard edges, but are simply loops of slippery and chaotic processes driven by our biological needs. Chairs may not exist. There may not be such a thing as a bed. But when we need to sit down to eat or lie down to sleep, our brain fuzzily seeks a mass in our environment which meets our needs. Ultimately, then, the brain is about matching biological needs to tools and objects in our environment; not to making sharp distinctions about it.

As to hylomorphism, I don't know enough to really have a seat at the table in that discussion. I just know vaguely that there are controversial aspects of the idea. But then, that's philosophy.