, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 159–171 | Cite as

Perdurance, Endurance, and ‘Having a Property Atemporally

  • Pablo RychterEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Perdurance theory Persistence Change Atemporal 



I would like to thank the following people for their helpful comments and criticism to previous versions of this paper: Marta Campdelacreu, Fabrice Correia, Dan López de Sa, Manuel García-Carpintero, Ben Caplan, María José Alcaraz, Dave Horacek, and Fabio del Prete. Research leading to this paper was partially funded by the DGI of the Spanish Government, project HUM2004-05609-C02-01.


  1. Hawley, Katherine 2001. How Things Persist. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  2. Lewis, David 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  3. Lewis, David. 2002. “Tensing the Copula”, Mind 111: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Sider, Theodore 2001. Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. (Oxford: Clarendon).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Logos Research Group (Barcelona) and The University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations