David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
If temporal parts are bona ﬁde parts, then it is ﬁtting to clarify and extend that notion (and related ones) using the resources of a theory of parts. But it often seems that those engaged in the 3D/4D debate appear to take for granted that, aside from introducing a welcome measure of rigor to the discussion, issues regarding theories of parthood can be allowed to recede into the background. What follows challenges that assumption — I demonstrate that the nature of the fundamental mereological relation1 can decisively inﬂuence the outcome of the debate over persistence. In short, I show that if the fundamental mereological relation is proper parthood-at-atime then four-dimensionalism is false.2 Recognizing this does at least two things for us. First, it supplies a framework in which three-dimensionalists can clarify two things they have tended to say all along, namely that persisting things are ‘wholly present’ throughout their careers and that they do not have temporal parts. Second, it re-focuses the debate on a narrower and perhaps more tractable question: “What is the nature of the fundamental mereological relation?”.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Elliott Louis Bedford (2012). Abortion: At the Still Point of the Turning Conscientious Objection Debate. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 24 (2):63-82.
Eric T. Olson (2006). Temporal Parts and Timeless Parthood. Noûs 40 (4):738-752.
Maureen Donnelly (2011). Endurantist and Perdurantist Accounts of Persistence. Philosophical Studies 154 (1):27 - 51.
Josh Parsons (2000). Must a Four-Dimensionalist Believe in Temporal Parts? The Monist 83 (3):399-418.
Yuri Balashov (2000). Persistence and Space-Time. The Monist 83 (3):321-340.
William F. Vallicella (2006). Can the Chariot Take Us to the Land of No Self? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 9:29-33.
Dean W. Zimmerman (1996). Persistence and Presentism. Philosophical Papers 25 (2):115-126.
Kris McDaniel (2010). Parts and Wholes. Philosophy Compass 5 (5):412-425.
Eric T. Olson (2006). Temporal Parts and Timeless Parthood. Noûs 40 (4):738–752.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads86 ( #48,957 of 1,907,187 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #276,357 of 1,907,187 )
How can I increase my downloads?