Endurantism and Paradox

Philosophia 41 (4):1173-1179 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Mereological challenges have recently been raised against the endurantist. For instance, Barker and Dowe (2003) have argued that eternalist endurantism entails (1) persisting objects are both 3D and 4D, and that (2) the lives of persisting objects last longer than they actually do. They also argue that presentist endurantism also entails, albeit in a tensed way, that (3) the lives of persisting objects last longer than they actually do. While they’ve further argued (2005) that the objections raised by McDaniel (2003) and Beebee and Rush (2003) fail, here I show that such objections are tenable without requiring further significant metaphysical commitments; I argue that such endurantist defences are tenable, contra to prior analyses
Categories
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DANEAP-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-11-03
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Extended Simples.McDaniel, Kris
Are Shapes Intrinsic?Skow, Bradford

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Multilocation, Fusions and Confusions.Calosi, Claudio & Costa, Damiano

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-07-12

Total views
492 ( #5,529 of 40,686 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
62 ( #8,717 of 40,686 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.