|
|
Re: What are sets? again
Posted:
Dec 3, 2012 12:12 AM
|
|
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Dec 2, 7:38 pm, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Dec 2012, Zuhair wrote:
> > > On Dec 2, 10:44 am, William Elliot <ma...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Zuhair wrote:
> > Basically, "is a part of" is a (partial) order.
> > "Subset" is the better interpretation that "is member of".
> >
> > So I'll take it as "subset" unless you give a useful
> > interpretation within 300 words or less.
> >
> > > The relation "is part of" is well understood philosophically speaking,
> > > it has natural examples.
> >
> > For example?
> >
> > > I think Varzi's account on it is nice and interesting really. You
> > > can also read David Lewis account on it. The discipline of Mereology
> > > is well established.
> >
> > What's the point of mereology?
> Basically mereology is of the consideration of Brentano boundaries and
> as comprehension in partitions or parts of wholes to complement elements
> of sets, of the composition of things. It's a natural complement to set
> theory.
Oh of course; why wouldn't I think of that?
For example, the surface of Jupiter.
> What's the point of philosophy?
To befuddle erudite vagaries.
|
|
