Metaphysica

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 101–115 | Cite as

On Three Arguments against Endurantism

Article

Abstract

Judith Thomson, David Lewis, and Ted Sider have each formulated different arguments that apparently pose problems for our ordinary claims of diachronic sameness, i.e., claims in which we assert that familiar, concrete objects survive (or persist) through time by enduring as numerically the same entity despite minor changes in their intrinsic and relational properties. In this paper, I show that all three arguments fail, in a rather obvious way—they beg the question—and so even though there may be arguments that provide grounds to fuss about whether our ordinary claims of diachronic sameness are defective, Thomson, Lewis, and Sider’s arguments are not among them.

Keywords

Endurantism Perdurantism Mereology Temporary intrinsics Leibniz’s law 

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. 1989. Universals: an opinionated introduction. London: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, L. R. 2007. The metaphysics of everyday life: an essay in practical realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balashov, Y. 1999. Relativistic objects. Noûs 33: 644–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorr, C. 2005. What we disagree about when we disagree about ontology, in Mark Kalderon (ed.), Fictionalism in Metaphysics, pp. 234–86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hansson, T. 2007. The problem(s) of change revisited. Dialectica 61: 265–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haslanger, S. 1989. Endurance and temporary intrinsics. Analysis 49: 119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heller, M. 1984. Temporal parts of four dimensional objects. Philosophical Studies 46: 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heller, M. 1992. Things change. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kim J. & Sosa E. 1999. Metaphysics: an anthology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Leonard, H. S. & Goodman, N. 1940. The calculus of individuals and its uses. Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Leśniewski, S. 1992. Collected works. Surma, et al. (eds., trans.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, D. 1988. Rearrangement of particles: Reply to Lowe. Analysis 48: 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. 2002. Tensing the copula. Mind 111: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lowe, E. J. 1988. The problems of intrinsic change: Rejoinder to Lewis. Analysis 48: 72–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merricks, T. 2001. Objects and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olson, E. 2006. Temporal parts and timeless parthood. Noûs 40: 738–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rychter, P. 2009. There is no puzzle about change. Dialectica 63: 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sider, T. 2001. Four-Dimensionalism. Oxford, Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomson, J. J. 1983. Parthood and identity across time. Journal of Philosophy 80: 201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomson, J. J. 1998. The statue and the clay. Noûs 32: 149–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rea, M. 1997. Material Constitution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wasserman, R. 2006. The problem of change. Philosophy Compass 1: 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations