Abstract
Under which conditions do some things compose a further thing? According to universalism, under any conditions whatsoever: whenever there are some things, there is something they compose. According to analytic universalism, this is an (unobvious, but still) analytic truth of mereology—just like certain other truths of logic, semantics, and indeed metaphysics. After presenting the situation in more detail, I consider a basic objection to analytic universalism, as voiced by Karen Bennett, Ross Cameron, and Ted Sider, according to which no such (universally quantified) conditional with existential consequent can be analytically true. I respond by considering suitably similar mereological principles that are widely regarded as analytic, despite sharing the relevant form with universalism. I end with some general remarks summarizing this result and its dialectical significance.