Endurantist and perdurantist accounts of persistence.
In this paper, I focus on three issues intertwined in current debates between endurantists and perdurantists-(i) the dimension of persisting objects, (ii) whether persisting objects have timeless, or only time-relative, parts, and (iii) whether persisting objects have proper temporal parts. I argue...
| Published in: | Philosophical Studies Vol. 154; no. 1; pp. 27 - 52 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
May2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| Summary: | In this paper, I focus on three issues intertwined in current debates between endurantists and perdurantists-(i) the dimension of persisting objects, (ii) whether persisting objects have timeless, or only time-relative, parts, and (iii) whether persisting objects have proper temporal parts. I argue that one standard endurantist position on the first issue is compatible with standard perdurantist positions on parthood and temporal parts. I further argue that different accounts of persistence depend on the claims about objects' dimensions and not on the auxiliary claims about parthood and temporal parts. |
|---|