PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Tech University Libraries]

On: 18 April 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 791922496]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659165
Holes
David Lewis
a
;Stephanie Lewis
a
a
University of California, Los Angeles
To cite this Article Lewis, David andLewis, Stephanie(1970) 'Holes', Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 48: 2, 206 212
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00048407012341181
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048407012341181
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Australasian Journal o f Philosophy
Vol. 48, No. 2; August, 1970
DAVID AND STEPHANIE LEWIS
HOLES
Argle. I believe in not hi ng but concret e mat eri al objects.
Bargle. Ther e are many of your opi ni ons I appl aud; but one of your less
pleasing characteristics is your fondness f or t he doctrines of nomi nal i sm and
materialism. Ever y t i me you get st art ed on any such topic, I know we are
in f or a l ong argument . Wher e shall we st ar t this t i me: numbers, colors,
lengths, sets, force-fields, sensations, or what ?
Argle. Fi ct i ons alll I ' ve t hought har d about every one of t hem.
Bargle. A l ong evening' s work. Before we start, let me find you a snack.
Will you have some crackers and cheese?
Argle. Thank you. What spendi d Gr uyr r el
Bargle. You know, t here are r emar kabl y many holes in this piece.
Argle. Ther e are.
Bargle. Got you!
Bargle. You admi t t here are many holes in t hat piece of cheese. There-
fore, t here are some holes in it. Therefore, t here are some holes. In ot her
words, holes exist. But holes are not made of mat t er ; t o t he cont rary, t hey
result f r om t he absence of mat t er .
Argle. I di d say t hat t her e are holes in t he cheese; but t hat is not t o
i mpl y t hat t here are holes.
Bargle. However n o t ? I f you say t hat t here are A' s t hat are B' s, you
are commi t t ed logically t o t he concl usi on t hat t here are A' s.
Argle. When I say t hat t here are holes i n something, I mean not hi ng
mor e nor less t han t hat i t is perforat ed. The synonymous shape-predicates
' . . . is per f or at ed' and ' t her e are holes i n . . . ' - - j u s t like any ot her shape-
predi cat e, say ' . . . is a dode c a he dr on' - - ma y t rul y be predi cat ed of pieces of
cheese, wi t hout any i mpl i cat i on t hat per f or at i on is due t o t he presence of
occult, i mmat eri al entities. I am sor r y my i nnocent predi cat e confuses you
by soundi ng like an i di om of existential quantification, so t hat you t hi nk t hat
inferences involving it are valid when t hey are not . But I have my reasons.
You, given a per f or at ed pi ece of cheese and believing as you do t hat it is
per f or at ed because it cont ai ns i mmat eri al entities called holes, empl oy an
i di om of existential quant i fi cat i on t o say falsely ' Ther e are holes in it' .
Agreeabl e fellow t hat I am, I wish t o have a sentence t hat sounds like your s
206
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
Holes
and t hat is t rue exact l y when you falsely suppose your existential quant i fi ca-
t i on over i mmat er i al things t o be true. That way we coul d t al k about t he
cheese wi t hout phi l osophi zi ng, i f onl y you' d let me. You and I woul d
under st and our sentences differently, but t he difference woul dn' t i nt erfere
wi t h our conver sat i on unt i l you st ar t drawi ng concl usi ons whi ch fol l ow f r o m
your false sent ence but not f r om my homonymous t r ue sentence, i
Bargle. Oh, ver y well. But behol d: t here are as ma n y holes in my
piece of Cheese as i n yours. Do you agr ee?
Argle. I ' l l t ake your wor d f or it wi t hout even count i ng: t here are as ma n y
holes in mi ne as in yours. But what I mean by t hat is t hat ei t her b o t h
pieces are si ngl y-perforat ed, or bot h are doubl y- per f or at ed, or bot h ar e
t ri pl y-perforat ed, and so on.
Bargle. Wha t a l ot of different shape-predi cat es you know! How ever
di d you find t i me t o l earn t hem al l ? And what does ' and so on' me a n? ~
Argle. Let me j us t say t hat t he t wo pieces ar e equal l y-perforat ed. No w
I have used onl y one t wo-pl ace predi cat e.
Bargle. Unl ess I si ngl y-perforat e each of these cr acker s , ' how will you
say t hat t here are as many holes in my cheese as crackers on my pl a t e ?
Be so ki nd as not t o i nvent anot her predi cat e on t he spot. I a m qui t e
pr epar ed t o go on unt i l you have t ol d me about all t he predi cat es you have
up your sleeve. I have a good i magi nat i on, and pl ent y of time.
Argle. Oh, d e a r . . , (ponders)
Argle. I was wrong. Ther e are holes.
Bargle. You r ecant ?
Argle. No. Hol es are mat eri al objects.
Bargle. I expect ed t hat sooner. You are t hi nki ng, doubt l ess, t hat ever y
hol e is filled, wi t h mat t er : silver amal gam, ai r , i nt erst el l ar gas, l umi ni ferous
et her or what ever it may be.
Argle. No. Per haps t here are no t rul y empt y hol es; but I cannot deny
t hat t here mi ght be.
Bargle. How can somet hi ng ut t erl y devoi d of mat t er be made of mat t er ?
Argle. You' r e l ooki ng f or t he mat t er i n t he wr ong place. (I mean t o
say, t hat ' s what you woul d be doi ng i f t here were any such t hi ngs as pl aces,
whi ch t here ar en' t . ) The mat t er i sn' t inside t he hole. I t woul d be abs ur d
t o say it was: nobody want s t o say t hat holes are inside themselves. The
mat t er sur r ounds t he hole. The lining of a hole, you agree, is a mat er i al
object. For every hol e t here is a hole-lining; f or every hole-lining t here is a
hole. I say t he hole-lining is t he hole.
cf. W. V. Quine, ' On What There Is' , From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edition (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961): 13.
s Cf Donald Davidson, 'Theories of Meaning and Learnable Languages', in Y. Bar-Hillel,
Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the 1964 International
Congress (Amsterdam, 1965): 383-394.
1 4 207
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
David and Stephanie Lewis
Bargle. Di dn' t you say t ha t t he hole-lining sur r ounds t he hol e? Thi ngs
don' t sur r ound themselves.
Argle. Hol es do. I n my l anguage, ' s ur r ounds ' said of a hol e (described
as such) means ' is identical wi t h' . ' Sur r ounds ' said of ot her things means
j ust what you t hi nk it means.
Bargle. Does n' t it bot her you t hat your di ct i onary mus t have t wo entries
under ' sur r ounds' where mi ne has onl y one ?
Argle. A little, but not much. I ' m used t o put t i ng up wi t h such things.
Bargle. Such whats ?
Argle. Such di ct i onary entries. They' r e ma de of dried ink, you recall.
Bargle. Oh. I suppose you' l l al so say t hat ' . . . is in . . . ' or ' . . . is
t h r o u g h . . . ' said of a hole means ' . . . is par t o f . . . ' .
Argle. Exact l y so, Bargle.
Bargle. Then do you still say t hat ' Ther e ar e holes in t he cheese' con-
tains an unanal yzed shape-predi cat e synonymous wi t h ' . . . is per f or at ed' ?
Argle. No; it is an existential quant i fi cat i on, as you t hi nk it is. I t means
t hat t here exist mat eri al obj ect s such t hat t hey ar e holes and t hey are par t s
of t he piece of cheese.
Bargle. But we woul dn' t say, woul d we, t hat a hol e is made out of cheese ?
Argle. No; but t he fact t hat we woul dn' t say it doesn' t mean it i sn' t true.
We woul dn' t have occasi on t o say, unless phi l osophi zi ng, t hat these walls
are per pendi cul ar t o t he fl oor; but t hey are. Anyhow we do say t h a t caves
are holes in t he gr ound and t hat some of t hem are made out of limestone.
Bargle. Take this paper - t owel roller. Spi n it on a l at he. The hole-
lining spins. Surely you' d never say t he hol e spins ?
Argle. Why not ?
Bargle. Even t hough t he hol e mi ght cont i nue t o be entirely filled wi t h a
dowel t hat di dn' t spin or move at al l ?
Argle. What difference does t hat make ?
Bargle. None, really. But now I have you: t ake a t oi l et -paper roller,
put it inside t he paper-t owel roller, and spin it t he ot her way. The big hol e
spins clockwise. The little hol e spins count er-cl ockwi se. But t he tittle
hol e is par t of t he bi g hole, so i t spins clockwise al ong wi t h t he rest of t he
big hole. So i f holes can spin, as you t hi nk, t he little hol e t urns out t o
be spi nni ng in bot h directions at once, which is absurd.
Argle. I see why you mi ght t hi nk t hat t he little hol e is par t of t he big
hole, but you can' t expect me t o agree. The little hol e is inside t he big hole,
but t hat ' s all. Hence I have no r eason t o say t hat t he little hol e is spi nni ng
clockwise.
Bargle. Consi der a t hi n-wal l ed hol e wi t h a gal l on of wat er inside. The
vol ume of t he hol e is at least a gal l on, whereas t he vol ume of t he hole-
208
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
Holes
l i ni ng is much less. I f t he hol e is t he hole-lining, t hen what ever was t r ue of
one woul d have t o be t r ue of t he ot her. They coul d not differ in vol ume.
Argle. For ' hol e' r ead ' bot t l e' ; f or ' hol e-l i ni ng' al so r ead ' bot t l e' . Yo u
have t he same par adox. Hol es, like bottles, have volume----or, as I ' d r at her
say, are vol umi nous or equi -vol umi nous wi t h ot her t hi ngs - - i n t wo di fferent
senses. Ther e' s t he vol ume of t he hol e or bot t l e itself, and t her e' s t he vol ume
of t he l argest chunk of fluid whi ch coul d be put inside t he hol e or bot t l e
wi t hout compr essi on. For holes, as f or bot t l es, cont ext ual clues per mi t
us t o keep t r ack of whi ch we mean.
Bargle. Wha t is t he vol ume of t he hol e itself? Ho w much of t he cheese
do you include as par t of one of these holes ? And how do you deci de ?
Arbi t rari l y, t hat ' s how. Do n ' t t r y saying you include as little of t he cheese
as possible, f or however much you include, you coul d have included less.
Argle. What we call a single hol e is real l y ma ny hole-linings. Some
include mor e of t he cheese, some include less. Ther ef or e I need not decide,
arbi t rari l y or ot herwi se, how much cheese is par t of t he hole. Many di fferent
decisions are equal l y correct .
Bargle. How can a single hol e be identical wi t h ma n y hole-linings t hat
are not i dent i cal wi t h one anot her ?
Argle. Real l y t here are ma ny different holes, and each is identical wi t h
a different hole-lining. But all t hese different holes ar e t he same hole.
Bargle. You cont r adi ct yourself. Do n ' t you mean t o say t hat t hey all
surround t he same hol e- - wher e by ' s ur r ound' I mean ' s ur r ound' , not ' be
i dent i cal wi t h' ?
Argle. Not at all. I woul d cont r adi ct mysel f i f I said t hat t wo di fferent
holes were identical. But I di dn' t ; what I said was t hat t hey were t he same
hole. Two hol es ar e t he same hol e when t hey have a c ommon par t t hat is
itself a hole.
Bargle. You agreed before t hat t here were as many holes i n my cheese as
crackers on my pl at e. Ar e t here still?
Argle. Yes; t here ar e t wo of each left.
Bargle. Two crackers, t o be sure, but how can you say t here are t wo
holes ?
Argle. Thus: t here is a hole, and t here is anot her hol e t hat is not t he s ame
hole, and every hol e in t he cheese is t he same hol e as one or t he other.
Bargle. Be so ki nd as t o say ' co- per f or at ed' , not ' same' , and st op pr e-
t endi ng t o t al k a bout i dent i t y when you ar e not . I under st and you now:
co- per f or at i on is supposed t o be an equi val ence rel at i on among hole-linings,
and when you say thQre are t wo holes you are t ryi ng t o say t hat t here are t wo
non-i dent i cal co-perforat i on-cl asses of hole-linings. Real l y you i dent i fy
holes not wi t h hole-linings but wi t h classes of hole-linings.
Argle. I woul d i f I coul d, but I can' t . No ; hol es ar e hole-linings;
but when I speak of t hem as holes, I find it conveni ent t o use "same" meani ng
209
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
David and Stephanie Lewis
"co- per f or at ed' wherever a ma n of your per suasi on woul d use ' s a me ' meani ng
' i dent i cal ' . You know my r eason f or this t r i cker y: my sentences about
sameness of holes will be t rue j us t when you wrongl y suppose your like-
soundi ng sentences t o be. The same goes f or sentences about number o f
holes, since we bot h anal yse t hese in t er ms of s amenes s )
Bargle. You still haven' t t ol d me how you say t here are as many holes
in my cheese as crackers on my pl at e, wi t hout al so sayi ng how many t here a r e .
Argle. Her e goes. Ther e exist t hree t hi ngs X, Y, and Z. X is par t of
t he sum of t he crackers, Y is par t of t he cheese, and Z is par t of Y. Ever y
maxi mal connect ed par t of Y is a hole, and every hol e in t he cheese is t he
same hol e as some maxi mal connect ed par t o f Y. X overl aps each of t he
crackers and Z overl aps each maxi mal connect ed par t of Y. Ever yt hi ng
whi ch is ei t her t he i nt ersect i on of X and a cr acker or t he i nt ersect i on of Z
and some maxi mal connect ed pa r t of Y is t he same size as any ot her such
thing. X is t he same size as Z. '
Bargle. Your devices won' t wor k because co- per f or at i on is not an equi va-
lence rel at i on. Any t wo over l appi ng par t s of my cheese have a c ommon
par t t hat is a hole-lining, t hough in mos t cases t he hole-lining is entirely
filled wi t h cheese. To be co- per f or at ed is t her ef or e not hi ng mor e t han t o
overl ap, and overl appi ng is n o equi val ence rel at i on. The result is t hat
al t hough, as you say, you can find t wo hole-linings in t hi s cheese t hat are not
co- per f or at ed, you can find anot her one t hat is co- per f or at ed wi t h bot h o f
t hem.
Argle. I f you were ri ght t hat a hol e made of cheese coul d be entirely
filled wi t h t he same ki nd o f cheese, you coul d find f ar mor e t han t wo non-
co- per f or at ed hole-linings; and t here woul d be no such t hi ng as cheese
wi t hout hol es in it. But you ar e wrong. A hol e is a hol e not j ust by vi rt ue
of its own shape but also by vi rt ue of t he way it cont r ast s wi t h t he mat t er
inside it and ar ound it. The same is t rue of ot her shape-predi cat es; I woul dn' t
say t hat any par t of t he cheese is a dodecahedr on, t hough I admi t t hat
t here ar e pa r t s - - pa r t s t hat do not cont r ast wi t h t hei r s ur r oundi ngs - - t hat
are shaped like dodecahedra.
Bargle. Consi der t he paper - t owel roller. Ho w ma ny holes ?
Argle. One. You know what I mean: many, but t hey' r e all t he same.
Bargle. I t hi nk you mus t say t her e are at least t wo. The left hal f and
t he ri ght hal f are not t he same hole. They have no c ommon par t , so no
c o mmo n par t t hat is a hole.
Argle. They' r e not holes, t hey' r e t wo par t s of a hole.
3 Cf Quine's maxim of identification of indiscernibles i n' Identity, Ostension, and Hypo-
stasis', From a Logical Point of View: 71 ; P.T. Geach, 'Identity', Review of Metaphysics
21 (1967): 3-12.
Thi s translation adapts a device from Nelson Goodman and W. V. Quine, 'Steps to-
ward a Constructive Nominalism', Journal of Symbolic Logic 12 (1947): 109-110.
210
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
Holes
Bargle. Why ar en' t t hey holes t hemsel ves ? They are si ngl y-perforat ed
and t hey are made of mat t er unl i ke t he mat t er inside t hem. I f I cut t he m
apar t you' d have t o say t hey were holes ?
Argle. Yes.
Bargle. You admi t t hat a hol e can be a pr oper par t of a bi gger - - s ay,
t hi cker - ski nned- - hol e ?
Argle. Yes.
Bargle. You admi t t hat t hey are shaped l i ke holes ?
Argle. Yes, but t hey ar en' t holes. I can' t say why t hey ar en' t . I
know whi ch t hi ngs are holes, but I can' t give you a definition. But why
shoul d I ? You al r eady know what hole-linings are. I say the t wo hal ves
of t he rol l er are onl y par t s of a hol e because I - - l i ke you- - woul d say t hey ar e
onl y par t s of a hole-lining. What i sn' t a hole-lining i sn' t a hole.
Bargle. I n t hat case, I admi t t hat co- per f or at i on ma y be an equi val ence
rel at i on at least a mong si ngl y-perforat ed hole-linings.
.4rgle. Al l hol es are si ngl y-perforat ed. A doubl y- per f or at ed t hi ng has
t wo holes in it t hat ar e not t he same hole.
Bargle. Ar e you sur e? Take t he paper - t owel rol l er and punch a little
hol e in its side. No w you have a hol e in a hole-lining. You' d have t o say
you have a hol e in a hole. You have a little hol e whi ch is par t of a bi g
hol e; t he big hol e is not si ngl y-perforat ed; and t he little hol e and t he bi g
hol e are t he same hole, since t he little hol e is a c ommon par t of each.
Argle. I t hi nk not . You speak of the bi g hol e; but what we have ar e
t wo big holes, not t he same, l ai d end t o end. Ther e is al so t he little hol e,
not t he same as ei t her bi g hole, whi ch overl aps t hem bot h. Of course we
somet i mes call somet hi ng a hole, in a deri vat i ve sense, i f it is a connect ed
sum of holes. Any decent cave consists of ma ny holes t hat ar e not t he s ame
hole, so I mus t have been speaki ng in t hi s deri vat i ve sense when I said t hat
caves are holes.
Bargle. What pecul i ar t hi ngs you are dri ven t o say when phi l os ophy
cor r upt s your mi nd I Tell me t he t r ut h: woul d you have dr eamt for a mo me n t
of sayi ng t here were t wo big holes r at her t han one i f you were not suffering
under t he influence of a phi l osophi cal t heor y?
Argle. No; I f ear I woul d have remai ned i gnor ant .
Bargle. I see t hat I can never hope t o refut e you, since I no sooner r educe
your posi t i on t o absur di t y t han you embr ace t he absurdi t y.
Argle. Not absur di t y; di sagreement wi t h c ommon opi ni on.
Bargle. Very well. But I, f or one, have mor e t r ust in c ommon opi ni ons
t han I do in any phi l osophi cal r easoni ng what ever. I n so far as you di s-
agree wi t h t hem, you must pa y a great pri ce in t he pl ausi bi l i t y of your
theories.
Argle. Agreed. We have been measur i ng t hat price. I have shown t hat
i t is not so gr eat as you t hought ; I am pr epar ed t o pa y it. My t heori es can
ear n credence by t hei r clarity and economy; and i f t hey disagree a little wi t h
1 4 ~ 2 1 1
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0
David and Stephanie Lewis
common opinion, t hen c ommon opi ni on may be correct ed even by a
philosopher.
Bargle. The price is still t oo high.
Argle. We agree in principle; we' re onl y haggling.
Bargle. We do. And t he same is t rue of our ot her debates over ont i c
parsi mony. Indeed, this ar gument has served us as an illustration-c-novel,
simple, and sel f - cont ai ned- - of t he nat ur e of our cust omary disputes.
Argle. And yet t he illustration has interest i n its own right. Your holes,
had I been less successful, woul d have punct ur ed my nominalistic materialism
with t he greatest of ease.
Bargle. Rehearsed and refreshed, let us r et ur n t o- - s a y- - t he quest i on
of classes. 5
Received Sept ember 1969
University of California
Los Angeles
+ The r e wo u l d be l i t t l e t rut h t o t he g ue s s t hat Ar g l e i s o n e o f t he aut hor s a n d Bargl e i s t he
ot her. We t h a n k Charl es Chas t ai n, w h o a l s o i s ne i t he r Ar g l e n o r Bargl e, f o r ma n y
he l pf ul c o mme nt s .
212
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
V
i
r
g
i
n
i
a

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

L
i
b
r
a
r
i
e
s
]

A
t
:

1
9
:
5
1

1
8

A
p
r
i
l

2
0
1
0