The concepts of time and identity seem at once unproblematic and frustratingly difficult. Time is an intricate part of our experience -- it would seem that the passage of time is a prerequisite for having any experience at all -- and yet recalcitrant questions about time remain. Is time real? Does time flow? Do past and future moments exist? Philosophers face similarly stubborn questions about identity, particularly about the persistence of identical entities through change. Indeed, questions about the metaphysics of (...) persistence take on many of the complexities inherent in philosophical considerations of time. This volume of original essays brings together these two essentially related concepts in a way not reflected in the available literature, making it required reading for philosophers working in metaphysics and students interested in these topics. The contributors, distinguished authors and rising scholars, first consider the nature of time and then turn to the relation of identity, focusing on the metaphysical connections between the two, with a special emphasis on personal identity. The volume concludes with essays on the metaphysics of death, issues in which time and identity play a significant role. This groundbreaking collection offers both cutting-edge epistemological analysis and historical perspectives on contemporary topics. Contributors:_ _Harriet Baber, Lynne Rudder Baker, Ben Bradley, John W. Carroll, Reinaldo Elugardo, Geoffrey Gorham, Mark Hinchliff, Jenann Ismael, Barbara Levenbook, Andrew Light, Lawrence B. Lombard, Ned Markosian, Harold Noonan, John Perry, Harry S. Silverstein, Matthew H. Slater, Robert J. Stainton, Neil A. Tognazzini The hardcover edition does not include a dust jacket. (shrink)

The ‘Frankfurt View’ (FV) alleges that the ‘principle of alternate possibilities’ (PAP) is undermined by ‘Frankfurt cases,’ cases in which the agent could not have done otherwise and yet is morally responsible for what he or she has done. In this paper I provide a partial defense of PAP—partial because it applies only to responsibility for acts and omissions; I endorse FV’s claim that PAP fails with regard to responsibility for decisions. But I accept FV’s claim that Frankfurt agents are (...) responsible for their decisions, acts, and omissions; I argue not merely that my proposed version of PAP for acts and omissions is compatible with this claim, but that by including an appeal to PAP so construed we can provide a defense of this claim that is superior to those standardly provided by FV’s supporters. I argue further that the account presented does a superior job of defending intuitively correct results in related cases, such as Fischer and Ravizza’s ‘Penned-In Sharks’ case and McIntyre’s ‘Princess’ case. (shrink)

A number of philosophers have accepted the thesis that reasons for action are 'universalizable' in the sense that every such reason commits one to a universal prescription or practical judgment. The purpose of the present paper is to refute this thesis. The author presents and defends counterexamples to both strong and weak versions of the thesis, And shows that the thesis can be given up without denying the general contention that 'reason'-Statements imply universals.