Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Quarterly 52 (208):369-372 (2002)
|Abstract||Eric T. Olson has argued that those who hold that two material objects can exactly coincide at a moment of time, with one of these objects constituting the other, face an insuperable difficulty in accounting for the alleged differences between the objects, such as their being of different kinds and possessing different persistence-conditions. The differences, he suggests, are inexplicable, given that the objects in question are composed of the same particles related in precisely the same way. In response, I show that the differences are not at all inexplicable once it is recognized that the conditions for a persisting object to be composed by certain particles at a moment of time must involve facts concerning other moments of time, and that the relevant facts are different for persisting objects of different kinds. Philosophers who neglect this sort of constraint on composition principles may be said to be victims of the 'cinematographic fallacy'|
|Keywords||Coincidence Fallacy Identity Material Metaphysics Object Olson, E|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eric T. Olson (2001). Material Coincidence and the Indiscernibility Problem. Philosophical Quarterly 51 (204):337-355.
Mark Moyer (2006). Statues and Lumps: A Strange Coincidence? Synthese 148 (2):401 - 423.
Judith Crane (2012). Biological-Mereological Coincidence. Philosophical Studies 161 (2):309-325.
E. T. Olson (2002). The Ontology of Material Objects. Philosophical Books 43 (4):292-299.
Theodore Sider (1993). Van Inwagen and the Possibility of Gunk. Analysis 53 (4):285 - 289.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads74 ( #13,760 of 740,500 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,500 )
How can I increase my downloads?