According to David Lewis, the argument from temporary intrinsics is ‘the principal and decisive objection against endurance’. I focus on eternalist endurantism, discussing three different ways the eternalist endurantist can try to avoid treating temporary intrinsics as relational. Two of them, generally known as ‘adverbialism’ and ‘SOFism’, are familiar and controversial. I scrutinize them and argue that Lewis’ scepticism about them is well founded. Then, I sketch a further, to some extent new, version of eternalist endurantism, where the key idea (...) is that intrinsic monadic properties had simpliciter by objects are eternal, time-transcendent properties in Fine’s sense, i.e., properties had by objects regardless of time. Eternal properties of an object are ipso facto sempiternal. When something is P at one time and not P at another, it is radically indeterminate whether it is P simpliciter or not. I argue that an account along these lines is better placed to treat intrinsic monadic properties of changing objects than any other known alternatives insofar as it recognizes that something is P simpliciter ; it is able to account for x’s being P at a time in terms of something’s being P simpliciter; it has an answer to the question ‘is \ simpliciter?’ when x is P at one time and not P at another. I conclude that endurantism is no less at ease with intrinsics than perdurantism is. (shrink)

1. Ramificazioni Talvolta, un’entità di qualche sorta si divide in due o più entità della stessa sorta (un’ameba in due amebe, un lombrico in due lombrichi, una pianta in due piante). Quando questo accade, si usa dire che l’entità originale si è – metaforicamente parlando – “ramificata”. Non ogni distacco di parti è una ramificazione. Né il taglio della coda a un cane né la divisione a metà di una carta da gioco lo sono, perché nel primo caso una delle (...) entità prodotte dalla divisione non è de... (shrink)