How Coincidence Bears on Persistence
- Pablo Rychter
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The ‘paradoxes of coincidence’ are generally taken as an important factor for deciding between rival views on persistence through time. In particular, the ability to deal with apparent cases of temporary coincidence is usually regarded as a good reason for favouring perdurantism (or ‘four-dimensionalism’) over endurantism (or ‘three-dimensionalism’). However, the recent work of Gilmore (2007) and McGrath (2007) challenges this standard view. For different reasons, both Gilmore and McGrath conclude that perdurantism does not really obtain support from the puzzles of temporary coincidence. In this paper, I will evaluate their arguments and defend the opposite view: that the paradoxes of coincidence do give some support to perdurantism. However, the way in which they do so is rather unexpected. As we will see, there are different ways in which coincidence scenarios may be thought to support perdurantism, some of which have not yet been sufficiently explored. Thus, my immediate goal is to explore one of those directions, bringing into focus a new argument from coincidence to perdurantism. And although I motivate my discussion by examining the arguments in the work of Gilmore and McGrath, the merits of this argument can be independently assessed. More generally, my overall purpose is to contribute to our general understanding of how the topics of coincidence and persistence bear on each other.
- Eagle, A. (2010). ‘Location and perdurance’. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics, vol. 5.
- Gilmore, C. (2006). Where in the relativistic world are we? Philosophical Perspectives, 20(1), 199–236. CrossRef
- Gilmore, C. (2007). ‘Time travel, coinciding objects, and persistence’. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics, vol. 3.
- Gilmore, C. (2008). Persistence and location in relativistic spacetime. Philosophy Compass, 3(6), 1224–1254. CrossRef
- Lewis, D. K. (1984). Putnam’s paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62(3), 221–236. CrossRef
- Lewis, D. K. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61(December), 343–377. CrossRef
- McGrath, M. (2007). ‘Four-dimensionalism and the puzzles of coincidence’. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics, vol. 3.
- Parsons, J. (2007). ‘Theories of location’. In D. Zimmerman (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaphysics, vol. 3.
- Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Clarendon.
- Sider, T. (2007). Parthood. Philosophical Review, 116(1), 51–91. CrossRef
- Wasserman, R. (2002). The standard objection to the standard account. Philosophical Studies, 111, 197–216. CrossRef
- How Coincidence Bears on Persistence
Volume 39, Issue 4 , pp 759-770
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Pablo Rychter (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Departament de Metafísica i Teoria del Coneixement, Universitat de València, Av. Blasco Ibañez, 30, 46010, València, Spain