Chung Him Kwok

Mereological pantheism is the view that the pantheist thesis, God is identical with the universe, is characterised by mereological notions and defended with arguments from mereology. In this paper, we shall argue that mereological pantheism is not a tenable theory because of its endorsement of the following three theses. (i) Existence pluralism, i.e. there is a plurality of things. (ii) Things are embedded with certain mereological structures and the mereological structures are presumably characterised by classical extensional mereology. (iii) Composition is a kind of identity. We argue that the three theses are jointly inconsistent. Moreover, if mereological pantheism denies the first assumption, it collapses into theism or atheism. Rejecting the second assumption betrays the name of “mereological pantheism.” And if the third assumption is denied, there is a gap between the claim that God is the composition of all things in the universe and the claim that God is identical with the universe. Thus, mereological pantheism is not a tenable version of pantheism.

This paper explores the prospects for a Pritchardean epistemological disjunctivist account of memory knowledge. We begin by providing an overview of Duncan Pritchard's epistemological disjunctivist account of perceptual knowledge, as well as the theoretical advantages of such an account. Drawing on that account, we present and motivate our own Pritchardean epistemological disjunctivist account of memory knowledge. After distinguishing different sorts of memory and the different roles that memory can play in knowledge acquisition, we set out our account and argue that the case for epistemological disjunctivism enjoys parity with the case for epistemological disjunctivism of perceptual knowledge. We also consider objections to our account. The first is from Joe Milburn and Andrew Moon, who argue against a general epistemological disjunctivism of memory on the basis of differences in memory types. The second objection arises from a Radford-like case whereby one's true belief is from memory even though one lacks rational support that is reflectively accessible to one.

This paper explores the prospects for a Pritchardean epistemological disjunctivist account of memory knowledge. We begin by providing an overview of Duncan Pritchard's epistemological disjunctivist account of perceptual knowledge, as well as the theoretical advantages of such an account. Drawing on that account, we present and motivate our own Pritchardean epistemological disjunctivist account of memory knowledge. After distinguishing different sorts of memory and the different roles that memory can play in knowledge acquisition, we set out our account and argue that the case for epistemological disjunctivism enjoys parity with the case for epistemological disjunctivism of perceptual knowledge. We also consider objections to our account. The first is from Joe Milburn and Andrew Moon, who argue against a general epistemological disjunctivism of memory on the basis of differences in memory types. The second objection arises from a Radford-like case whereby one's true belief is from memory even though one lacks rational support that is reflectively accessible to one.