David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (3):602-621 (2005)
Closest-continuer or best-candidate accounts of persistence seem deeply unsatisfactory, but it’s hard to say why. The standard criticism is that such accounts violate the ‘only a and b’ rule, but this criticism merely highlights a feature of the accounts without explaining why the feature is unacceptable. Another concern is that such accounts violate some principle about the supervenience of persistence facts upon local or intrinsic facts. But, again, we do not seem to have an independent justification for this supervenience claim. Instead, I argue that closest continuer accounts are committed to unexplained correlations between distinct existences, and that this is their fundamental flaw. We can have independent justification for rejecting such correlations, but what the justification is depends upon much broader issues in ontology. There is no one-size-fits all objection to closest-continuer accounts of persistence
|Keywords||PERSONAL IDENTITY HUMEAN SUPERVENIENCE TEMPORAL PARTS WORLDS TIME|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Derek Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
David K. Lewis (1986/2001). On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell Publishers.
Nathan U. Salmon (2005). Reference and Essence. Prometheus Books.
Robert Nozick (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Theodore Sider (2001). Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Heather Demarest (2015). Fission May Kill You. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (3).
J. Robert G. Williams (2013). Part‐Intrinsicality. Noûs 47 (3):431-452.
Katherine Hawley (2008). Persistence and Determination. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 62 (62):197-212.
Similar books and articles
Markku Keinänen & Jani Hakkarainen (2010). Persistence of Simple Substances. Metaphysica 11 (2):119-135.
Ryan Wasserman, John Hawthorne & Mark Scala (2004). Recombination, Causal Constraints, and Humean Supervenience: An Argument for Temporal Parts? In Dean Zimmerman (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics. OUP Oxford
Katherine Hawley (1999). Persistence and Non-Supervenient Relations. Mind 108 (429):53-67.
Marc Slors (2004). The Closest Continuer View Revisited. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (3):387-402.
J. M. (2002). Supervenience and (Non-Modal) Reductionism in Leibniz's Philosophy of Time. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):793-810.
Alan Sidelle (2000). Finding an Intrinsic Account of Identity: What is the Source of Duplication Cases? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):415-430.
Ryan J. Wasserman (2005). Humean Supervenience and Personal Identity. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (221):582-593.
Maureen Donnelly (2011). Endurantist and Perdurantist Accounts of Persistence. Philosophical Studies 154 (1):27 - 51.
Terence E. Horgan (1982). Supervenience and Microphysics. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63 (January):29-43.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads104 ( #37,496 of 1,799,482 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #51,083 of 1,799,482 )
How can I increase my downloads?