Advertisement

Acta Analytica

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 225–234 | Cite as

In Defence of Transcendentism

  • Damiano Costa
  • Alessandro Giordani
Article
  • 332 Downloads

Abstract

How do objects persist through time? According to endurantism, objects persist through time and do not have temporal parts. According to the transcendentist version of endurantism, objects exist at times by participating in events that occur at those times. This version of transcendentism offers specific metaphysical and semantical advantages over other versions of endurantism. In this paper, we defend transcendentist endurantism against a series of criticisms that have been recently offered by Kristie Miller.

Keywords

Extended Region Temporal Part Proper Part Locate Entity Football Match 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: an opinionated introduction. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  2. Calosi, C. (2011). Persistence and change in Minkowski spacetime. Logic and Philosophy of Science, 9(1), 325–342.Google Scholar
  3. Daniels, P. (2014). Occupy wall: a mereological puzzle and the burdens of endurantism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92(1), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donnelly, M. (2011). Endurantist and perdurantist accounts of persistence. Philosophical Studies, 154(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilmore, C. (2003). In defence of spatially related universals. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81(3), 420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilmore, C. (2006). Where in the relativistic world are we? Philosophical Perspectives, 20(1), 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giordani, A., & Costa, D. (2013). From times to worlds and back again: a transcendentist theory of persistence. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2(1), 210–220.Google Scholar
  8. Lowe, E. J. (1998). The possibility of metaphysics: substance, identity, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lowe, E. J. (2006). The four-category ontology: a metaphysical foundation for natural science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, K. (2009). Ought a four-dimensionalist to believe in temporal parts? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(4), 619–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Miller, K. (2013). Times, worlds and locations. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2(1), 221–227.Google Scholar
  12. Parsons, J. (2007). Theories of location. In K. Bennett, & D. W. Zimmerman (Eds.), Oxford studies in metaphysics (vol. 3, pp. 201–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sattig, T. (2006). The language and reality of time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sider, T. (2001). Four-dimensionalism: an ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simons, P. (1987). Parts: a study in ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wiggins, D. (1980). Sameness and substance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Philosophical StudiesLuganoSwitzerland
  3. 3.Catholic University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations