This collection of essays is the first of its kind to focus on the relationship between composition and identity. Twelve original articles--written by internationally renowned scholars and rising stars in the field--argue for and against the controversial doctrine that composition is identity.--Provided by publisher.

This paper is a systematic exploration of non-wellfounded mereology. Motivations and applications suggested in the literature are considered. Some are exotic like Borges’ Aleph, and the Trinity; other examples are less so, like time traveling bricks, and even Geach’s Tibbles the Cat. The authors point out that the transitivity of non-wellfounded parthood is inconsistent with extensionality. A non-wellfounded mereology is developed with careful consideration paid to rival notions of supplementation and fusion. Two equivalent axiomatizations are given, and are compared to (...) classical mereology. We provide a class of models with respect to which the non-wellfounded mereology is sound and complete. (shrink)

Ontological pluralism holds that there are different ways of being. Truth pluralism holds that there are different ways of being true. Both views have received growing attention in recent literature, but so far there has been very little discussion of the connections between the views. The authors suggest that motivations typically given for truth pluralism have analogue motivations for ontological pluralism; they argue that while neither view entails the other, those who hold one view and wish to hold the other (...) will find natural routes by which to do so. The authors additionally identify some disanalogies between the views, by considering whether certain “mixed” problems commonly pressed against truth pluralism have analogues for ontological pluralism. (shrink)

Jay Garfield and Graham Priest have attempted to make sense of Nāgārjuna’s apparently paradoxical uses of the catuṣkoṭi, or “four corners of truth”—according to which, a sentence may be true, false, both, or neither—by presenting a series of lattices. This chapter argues that Garfield and Priest’s lattices cannot ground the logic at play in Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā; their semantic analysis cannot be an accurate analysis of Nāgārjuna’s arguments. The chapter argues for a new semantic interpretation that places greater emphasis on the (...) suggestion that the positive catuṣkoṭi requires disambiguation between the conventional and ultimate perspectives, whereas the negative catuṣkoṭi does not. (shrink)