Scribd
Upload
61 views1 page

Study Van Inwagen

Peter Van Inwagen critiques the contact and fastening views regarding the Special Composition Question in his work 'Material Beings.' He argues that both views are problematic as they contradict established scientific knowledge, such as the nature of atomic composition and interactions. Ultimately, he finds these answers to be vague and insufficient in addressing the complexities of material composition.

Uploaded by

natalia sigalas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views1 page

Study Van Inwagen

Peter Van Inwagen critiques the contact and fastening views regarding the Special Composition Question in his work 'Material Beings.' He argues that both views are problematic as they contradict established scientific knowledge, such as the nature of atomic composition and interactions. Ultimately, he finds these answers to be vague and insufficient in addressing the complexities of material composition.

Uploaded by

natalia sigalas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Study Van Inwagen’s Material Beings, chapters 3 and 6, and describe why

PvI thinks all the answers to the Special Composition Question discussed
in these chapters are problematic.
Also, indicate whether you think that one of these answers is defensible
against PvI's criticism.

The question of material composition is addressed in Peter Van Inwagen's "Material Beings" in terms of
the assembly of a whole object from two or more parts. This relates to the quantity and arrangement of
the components that make up an item, including how they should interact with one another. The
Question of Material Composition examines the relationship between qualities rather than the idea of
composition when it comes to materials. Peter Van Inwagen examines and dismisses two potential
answers to this question, namely the contact view and the fastening view.

The contact view is simple and easy to use. It claims that only when the xs are in physical contact
(touching) with one another do they form a y. This contact view seems to provide the answer to our
query when we picture a pile of slippers, however there is an issue with this. The contact view also has
the flaw of implying that when individuals hug, they are creating a new object, which we all know is not
the case. Additionally, it implies that atoms are not made up of protons and electrons which we are
aware is untrue. All of the scientific knowledge we have would be invalidated by this viewpoint.
Therefore, adopting this response to the Special Composition Question would be challenging to defend
because it is so at odds with science and its studies.

Furthermore, he discusses the fastening view. According to this perspective, xs make up a y if and only if
they are all connected. This assertion also makes sense. To fasten objects together, one could use
binding materials. However, if two people were considered to be joined after hugging one another they
would not be classified as a constructed entity. According to science, everything is constituted of atoms,
which are made up of particles. This viewpoint would have to imply that atoms do not exist because
particles do not interact in order to form them, once again being disproven by standing scientific
theories. We are prone to ignore this claim as it cannot logically stand true.

Both the contact view and the fastening view present understandable statements, but neither presents
scientifically sound arguments. Furthermore the way in which they approach the question is vague and
abstract leading to the answers failing to properly address the issue at hand.

You might also like