Different Answers to the Special Composition Question
What does it take for an object to be composed?
Written by Georgia Egleston
The Special Composition Question, also known as the Question of Material Composition is based on several theories that analyze and attempt to answer what the criteria are for composing a further object. The esoteric language used in this topic of metaphysics is quite complex and can take a while to understand. Nonetheless, I will do my best to explain the most significant terminology throughout this piece. Peter Van Inwagen’s ‘Material Beings’ deals with this Question of Material Composition in terms of composing a whole object with two or more parts. Van Inwagen uses the word ‘part’ as a mereological term. This refers to how many objects or parts it takes to make another whole object and how these parts should be in contact. For example, how many pairs of shoes does it take to make a ‘pile’. Should these shoes be touching or could they just be near each other? These are the kind of questions the Special Composition Question provokes. Mereology is the study of parts and the whole they compose. Our intuition tells us that four legs and a tabletop make a table and that four walls and a roof make a house. However, I think we can all agree that a birdhouse and a pair of shoes do not compose a further object. The Question of Material Composition seeks to find the reason for this. What makes the four legs and a tabletop a further object but a birdhouse and a pair of shoes not? Is it because of the form of contact they are in? For example, are they just touching or are they fastened together using glue or screws? These are some of the questions that arise throughout this topic. It is important to note that the Question of Material Composition does not analyze the concept of composition but the relationship between properties that are linked together with regards to composition.
Contact and fastening view
The contact view is an intuitive one. It states that xs compose a y if and only if the xs are in contact with each other (touching). When we imagine a pile of shoes, this contact view appears to answer our question, however, there is a problem with this. How many pair of shoes composes a pile? How must the pairs of shoes be positioned? Do they have to lay on top of each other or can there just be a few pairs of shoes in contact with each other (beside instead of on top)? Another issue with the contact view is that it implies that by people shaking hands, they are composing a further object, which we know is not the case. In addition to this, it also implies that protons and electrons do not compose atoms. We also know this is not true. With this view, all the scientific knowledge we acquire would render false. Hence, taking on this answer to the Special Composition Question would be difficult to justify as it is so contradictory to science and its research. These counterintuitive claims make the contact view seem implausible. It may explain some cases but philosophers are determined to find a better view or answer to the Special Composition Question. That brings us to the fastening view. This view states that xs compose a y if and only if the xs are all fastened together. This claim is also an intuitive one. One could use glue, screws, buttons and so on to fasten things together. Nonetheless, if two people’s hands were fastened together after shaking hands we would not consider this a composed object. Science tells us that everything is made up of atoms, which are composed of particles. Particles do not touch each other in order to make up atoms, and hence, this view would suggest that atoms do not exist. This claim is very counterintuitive and so we are inclined to disregard it. It is not clear how these properties or objects must be fastened together. Both the contact view and the fastening view offer intuitive claims, however, they are both very vague on the degree of contact that is required.
Mereological Nihilism and Organicism
As mentioned above, mereology is the study of parts and the whole they compose. Nihilism states that xs never compose a y. This view suggests that there are no mereologically complex objects, only simples. Simples have no proper parts, which means they are not made up of anything. They are like the building blocks of the world. Therefore, with regards to this particular view, these mereological simples are the only things to actually exist in this world. Everything else we believe to exist is simply just mereological simples being rearranged into shapes. This is a clean and straightforward view, however, it does seem very unnatural and counterintuitive. It is difficult to go along with a view that says that atoms, trees, mountains or animals do not exist. This completely contradicts and undermines what us humans see and believe. That aside, it is still worth considering. Despite the counterintuitive nature of the nihilist approach to the Special Composition Question, there is one other way that could potentially justify it. Instead of saying ‘there is a tree over there’, a nihilist would say ‘There are some simples arranged tree-wise over there’. This way we are not totally denying the appearance or presence of a ‘tree’. Mereological organicism is quite similar to nihilism in the sense that it suggests that living beings do exist, however, any other object with parts do not, for example, chairs, trees, cars. For this reason, people might appeal to organicism over nihilism. It would be implausible that us human beings do not even exist to most people. Consequently, mereological organicism provides a slightly more convincing theory. This is how organicism would be defined: xs compose a y if and only if the activity of the xs constitutes a life. Nonetheless, there are still counterintuitive claims with regards to this approach, hence, making it difficult to take on board.
Mereological Universalism
Another answer to the Special Composition Question is Mereological Universalism. This view states that xs compose a y if and only if the xs are not overlapping. According to Universalism, composition is ‘automatic’. It claims that ‘whenever there are non-overlapping xs, there is an object composed of those xs’. This view of Universalism basically suggests that anything composes a further object. My bed, an aeroplane, and the Eiffel Tower compose an object. This is quite an appealing view in my opinion as it is very open and limitless. However, this could be controversial as there are no limits as to what composes an object. There are no regulations so it is an ambitious view that is difficult to manage. Nevertheless, both these views offer very contrasting yet insightful and intriguing approaches to answer the Special Composition Question.
Brute Composition
Ultimately, there is the answer of Brute Composition in response to the Special Composition Question. This is considered the craziest response to the Special Composition Question. It says that there is no answer to the question at all. This is also a very unsatisfying claim and compared to the other in-depth theories mentioned above this sounds absurd. Regardless, there is no reason to completely disregard this answer. If one was to consider every other answer to the Special Composition question and didn’t feel like they were truly satisfied with any of them, they could come to the conclusion that the Brute Composition answer is the most accurate for them.
Bibliography
1. Carroll, J. W. and Markosian, N. (2010) An Introduction to Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy).
2. Carroll, J. W. and Markosian, N. (2010) An Introduction to Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy).
3. Ney, A., 2014. Metaphysics: An Introduction. Taylor & Francis.
4. Carroll, J. W. and Markosian, N. (2010) An Introduction to Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Introductions to Philosophy).
