By(e) enduring? An answer to Wasserman.

According to a recent argument due to Wasserman, endurantism does not qualify as an explanatory theory of persistence inasmuch as it either provides a circular account of persistence facts or merely rejects the perdurantist’s explanation of such facts. This paper challenges Wasserman’s conclusions b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Synthese Vol. 202; no. 4; pp. 1 - 13
Autores principales: Scarpati, Maria, Calosi, Claudio
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Springer Nature Oct2023
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=172999766&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 172999766
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00397857
        4LI
      jtl: Synthese
      issn: 00397857
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2023
      vid: 202
      iid: 4
      pid: 237
      pub: Springer Nature
    artinfo:
      ui:
        172999766
        10.1007/s11229-023-04351-8
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 319KB
      tig:
        atl: By(e) enduring? An answer to Wasserman.
      aug:
        au:
          Scarpati, Maria
          Calosi, Claudio
        affil:
          https://ror.org/00vasag41 University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
          https://ror.org/052gg0110 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
          https://ror.org/01swzsf04 Department of Philosophy, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
      sug:
      keyword:
        Being wholly present
        Endurantism
        Explanation
        Location
        Persistence
        Temporal parts
      ab: According to a recent argument due to Wasserman, endurantism does not qualify as an explanatory theory of persistence inasmuch as it either provides a circular account of persistence facts or merely rejects the perdurantist’s explanation of such facts. This paper challenges Wasserman’s conclusions by pointing out that an endurantist answer to his complaint is available thanks to the locational notions of persistence provided in the work of Gilmore, Parsons, Balashov among others. It then gives details as to how such notions can be used to answer Wasserman’s specific argument for the idea that endurantism is either unexplanatory or circular. After a brief introduction (Sect. 1) we provide the technical notions that we need to answer Wasserman’s complaint (Sect. 2) and offer a phrasing of endurantism which is immune to that complaint in terms of locative notions (Sect. 3). We then prove that two further conceptions of endurantism are entailed by that phrasing. Crucially, such conceptions are phrased in terms that Wasserman himself cannot, on pain of inconsistency, dismiss, as those are the very terms in which he conceives of endurantism in the first place—that is, whole presence and the rejection of temporal parts (Sect. 4).
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2023. All Rights Reserved.
      item: Synthese
      holder: Springer Nature
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2023
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N