Authors
Ned Markosian
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Abstract
The concept of a physical object has figured prominently in the history of philosophy, and is probably more important now than it has ever been before. Yet the question What are physical objects?, i.e., What is the correct analysis of the concept of a physical object?, has received surprisingly little attention. The purpose of this paper is to address this question. I consider several attempts at answering the question, and give my reasons for preferring one of them over its rivals. The account of physical objects that I recommend-the Spatial Location Account-defines physical objects as objects with spatial locations. The intuitive idea behind the Spatial Location Account is this. Objects from all of the different ontological categories-physical objects; non-physical objects like souls, if there are any; propositions; universals; etc.-have this much in common: they all exist in time. But not all of them exist in space. The ones that exist in time and space, i.e., the ones that have spatial locations, are the ones that count as physical objects.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/2653656
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,593
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

A Defense of Presentism.Ned Markosian - 2004 - Oxford Studies in Metaphysics 1:47-82.
Brutal Composition.Ned Markosian - 1998 - Philosophical Studies 92 (3):211 - 249.
Spacetime the One Substance.Jonathan Schaffer - 2009 - Philosophical Studies 145 (1):131 - 148.
Material Through and Through.Andrew M. Bailey - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (8):2431-2450.
A Spatial Approach to Mereology.Ned Markosian - 2014 - In Shieva Keinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press.

View all 32 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Are Physical Objects?Ned Markosian - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):375-395.
What Are Physical Objects?Ned Markosian - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):375-395.
Physical Objects.C. H. Whiteley - 1959 - Philosophy 34 (129):142 - 149.
The Common‐Sense View of Physical Objects.Timothy L. S. Sprigge - 1966 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 9 (1-4):339-373.
Documentalità: Ontologia Del Mondo Sociale.Maurizio Ferraris - 2007 - Etica E Politica 9 (2):240-329.
Ontic Structural Realism as a Metaphysics of Objects.Michael Esfeld & Vincent Lam - 2011 - In Alisa Bokulich & Peter Bokulich (eds.), Scientific Structuralism. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 143-159.
Perceptual Objects May Have Nonphysical Properties.]ev Aaron Ben-Ze[hamza - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (1):22-23.
A Spatial Approach to Mereology.Ned Markosian - 2014 - In Shieva Keinschmidt (ed.), Mereology and Location. Oxford University Press.
The Nature of Perception.John Foster - 2000 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Spatial Ontology and Physical Modalities.Hugh M. Lacey & Elizabeth Anderson - 1980 - Philosophical Studies 38 (3):261 - 285.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-19

Total views
27 ( #411,243 of 2,462,048 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #298,852 of 2,462,048 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes