, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 33–55 | Cite as

Persistence, Ontic Vagueness and Identity: Towards a Substantialist Four–dimensionalism

  • Enrique RomeralesEmail author
Original Paper


Four-dimensionalism, the stage theory version in particular, has been defended as the best solution for avoiding vagueness in regards to composition, persistence and identity. Stage theory is highly problematic by itself, and the two views usually packed with it, unrestricted composition and counterpart theory, are a heavy burden. However, dispensing with these two views, four-dimensionalism could avoid vague persistence by issuing a criterion that would establish sharp temporal boundaries for the existence of genuine entities (simples, molecules and living organisms). This would avoid vague existence and vague identity, but in a way that is still compatible with endurantism. Nevertheless, a minimal (substantialist) four-dimensionalism, a worm perdurantist ontology, would fit better with the unique way in which organisms persist: by retaining both identity and intrinsic change.


Persistence Vagueness Four-dimensionalism Perdurance Stages Substance Identity 


  1. Broome, J. (1984). “Indefiniteness in Identity”. Analysis, 1984, 44; 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hawley, K. (2001). How Things Persist. Oxford, Clarendon.Google Scholar
  3. Heller, M. (1984). “Temporal Parts of Four-Dimensional Objects”. Philosophical Studies, 46; 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heller, M. (1990). The Ontology of Physical Objects. Four-dimensional Hunks of Matter. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Heller, M. (1993). “Varieties of Four-Dimensionalism”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71; 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haslanger, S. (2003). “Persistence Through Time”. In The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics, Oxford U.P.; 315–356.Google Scholar
  7. Hudson, H. (2000). “Universalism, Four-dimensionalism and Vagueness”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60; 547–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewis, D. (1983). “New Work for a Theory of Universals”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy; 343–377.Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Lowe, E.J. (2002). A Survey of Metaphysics. Oxford, Clarendon.Google Scholar
  11. Makrosian, N. (1998) “Brutal Composition”. Philosophical Studies, 92; 211–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKinnon, N. (2003) “Vague Simples”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 84; 394–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Merricks, T. (2005). “Composition and Vagueness”. Mind, 114; 615–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nadler, S. (ed.) (1993): Causation in Early Modern Philosophy: Cartesianism, Occasionalism, and Preestablished Harmony. Pennsylvania State Uni. Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rea, M. (1998): “In Defense of Mereological Universalism”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58; 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism, Oxford, Clarendon, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. Smith, N.J.J. (2005). “A Plea for Things that Are not Quite All There. Or Is There a Problem about Vague Composition and Vague Existence”. Journal of Philosophy, CII; 381–421.Google Scholar
  18. Stalnaker, R. (1988). “Vague Identity”. In Austin, D.F.: Philosophical Analysis. A Defense by Example. Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  19. Thompson, J.J. (1983). “Parthood and Identity across Time”. The Journal of Philosophy, 80; 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van Inwagen, P. (1990a). Material Beings. Ithaca, Cornell U.P.Google Scholar
  21. Van Inwagen, P. (1990b). “Four Dimensional Objects”. NOUS, 24; 245–255.Google Scholar
  22. Van Inwagen, P. (2000). “Temporal Parts and Identity across Time”. The Monist, 83; 437–459.Google Scholar
  23. Van Inwagen, P. (2002). “The Number of Things”. Philosophical Issues, 12; 176–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Varzi, A. (2003). “Naming the Stages”. Dialectica; 387–412.Google Scholar
  25. Williamson, T. (2003). “Vagueness in Reality”. In The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics, Oxford U.P.; 691–711.Google Scholar
  26. Williamson, T. & Fara, M. (2005). “Counterparts and Actuality”. Mind, 114; 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Filosofía, Facultad de Filosofía y LetrasUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations