Ought a four-dimensionalist to believe in temporal parts?

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (4):pp. 619-646 (2009)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
This paper presents the strongest version of a non-perdurantist four-dimensionalism: a theory according to which persisting objects are four-dimensionally extended in space-time, but not in virtue of having maximal temporal parts. The aims of considering such a view are twofold. First, to evaluate whether such an account could provide a plausible middle ground between the two main competitor accounts of persistence: three-dimensionalism and perdurantist four-dimensionalism. Second, to see what light such a theory sheds on the debate between these two competitor theories. I conclude that despite prima facie reasons to suppose that non-perdurantist four-dimensionalism might be a credible alternative to either other account of persistence, ultimately the view is unsuccessful. The reasons for its failure illuminate the sometimes stagnant debate between three-dimensionalists and perdurantists, providing new reasons to prefer a perdurantist metaphysics.
Categories
ISBN(s)
0045-5091
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MILOAF
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-08-28
View other versions
Added to PP index
2010-01-23

Total views
455 ( #10,179 of 53,572 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
42 ( #15,591 of 53,572 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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