Perdurance, Endurance, and ‘Having a Property Atemporally’
- Pablo Rychter
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
In this paper, I argue that both perdurance theory and the ‘relations-to-times’ endurantist view rely on an atemporal notion of property instantiation and relation bearing. I distinguish two possible meanings of ‘atemporal’ which result in two different understandings of what it is for an object to have a property or to bear a relation atemporally. I show that standard presentations of the theories considered are indeterminate as to which of these two understandings is the intended one. I claim that even if both understandings are admissible, one of them is more attractive and has more to recommend than the other.
- Hawley, Katherine 2001. How Things Persist. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
- Lewis, David 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. (Oxford: Blackwell).
- Lewis, David. 2002. “Tensing the Copula”, Mind 111: 1–13. CrossRef
- Rodríguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo (2003). ‘What is wrong with the relational theory of change?’ in H. Lillehammer and G. Rodriguez-Pereyra, eds., Real Metaphysics, (Routledge): 184–195.
- Sider, Theodore 2001. Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. (Oxford: Clarendon).
- Perdurance, Endurance, and ‘Having a Property Atemporally’
Volume 9, Issue 2 , pp 159-171
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Pablo Rychter (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Logos Research Group (Barcelona) and The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada