Clarendon Press (1990)
It is a trite fact that changes do occur, yet is it logically contradictory to deny that they do? If Zeno and McTaggart were right, then there is no logical contradiction in such a denial, although this is incompatible with the way in which we normally think of the world. Supporters of the `block view' of the universe believe that there is a sense in which all events may be said to be contemporaneous, like episodes in a book, so that there is no `objective' past or future. The aim of this book is not to demolish belief in the existence of objective change, but to elucidate the conditions under which it makes sense to suppose that changes occur. The book pays particular attention to the existence of selves as one such condition, and concludes that the naturalistic account of change is defective and leaves the sceptic victorious.
|Keywords||Change Self (Philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$5.98 used (97% off) $150.00 direct from Amazon $150.00 new Amazon page|
|Call number||BD373.P58 1990|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Change Blindness.Ronald A. Rensink - 2005 - In Laurent Itti, Geraint Rees & John K. Tsotsos (eds.), Neurobiology of Attention. Academic Press. pp. 76--81.
Do Cry Over Spilt Milk: Possibly You Can Change the Past.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2005 - The Monist 88 (3):370 - 387.
Change Detection Without Awareness: Do Explicit Reports Underestimate the Representation of Change in the Visual System?Diego Fernandez-Duque & Ian Thornton - 2000 - Visual Cognition 7 (1):323-344.
Temporal Parts and the Possibility of Change.David S. Oderberg - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (3):686–708.
Evidence for Preserved Representations in Change Blindness.Daniel J. Simons, Christopher Chabris & Tatiana Schnur - 2002 - Consciousness and Cognition 11 (1):78-97.
Thoroughly Modern Mctaggart: Or, What Mctaggart Would Have Said If He Had Read the General Theory of Relativity.John Earman - 2002 - Philosophers' Imprint 2 (3):1-28.
Is There a Dutch Book Argument for Probability Kinematics?Brad Armendt - 1980 - Philosophy of Science 47 (4):583-588.
Change, Temporal Parts, and the Argument From Vagueness.Achille C. Varzi - 2005 - Dialectica 59 (4):485–498.
From Change to Spacetime: An Eleatic Journey. [REVIEW]Gustavo E. Romero - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (1):139-148.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #374,803 of 2,164,562 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #347,948 of 2,164,562 )
How can I increase my downloads?