from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- adj. Having no parts.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- Without a part; not sharing.
- Without good parts.
Sorry, no etymologies found.
And who can accept a soul described as partless and massless and yet, for all that absence of extension, extending over a universe?
Just goes you injured yourself you not partless than a minute ago via Twitter for iPhoneNickBarnett
The problem lies in the instinctive human conviction that one is a permanent, partless, and autonomous self, essentially disconnected from and unaffected by flux and contingency.
Buddhist philosophers distinguishing the selflessnesses of the person and of phenomena (partless particles, lack of external phenomena, true existence of mind and ultimate truth).
Thus the argument leaves room for the idea that souls are not forms, but are nevertheless intelligible, partless and imperishable (contra Robinson 1995, 29).
Introducing the idea of unnoticed oscillation of a single, partless mind is highly ingenious and must have been dialectically effective at least to some extent.
The second noteworthy aspect is the insistence of the Stoic theory that the mind of an adult human being is a single, partless item that is rational all the way down.
Now a partless, or indivisible entity does not necessarily have to be infinitesimal: souls, individual consciousnesses, and Leibnizian monads all supposedly lack parts but are surely not infinitesimal.
In the Meditations Descartes distinguishes mind and matter on the grounds that the corporeal, being spatially extended, is divisible, while the mental is partless.
This resolves the problem of atomic edges, and also that of how atoms can come in different shapes and sizes (though never large enough to be seen): to have the hooks and crevices needed to form compounds, they can scarcely be theoretically partless.
Wordnik is becoming a not-for-profit! Read our announcement here.