I aim to show that there are cases in which an ordinary material object exists intermittently. Afterwards there are a few words about the consequences of acknowledging such cases, but what is of more interest is the route by which the conclusion is reached. When deciding among competing descriptions of the cases considered, I have tried to reduce to a minimum the role of intuitive judgment, and I have based several arguments on "metaphysical principles," two of which I have defended.

Traditionally, the views of Leibniz and Kripke are seen as opposites on the spectrum with respect to trans-world identity: Leibniz argues against it, while for Kripke it is crucial for explaining the very notion of possibility. My paper proposes a reading that blurs the distinction between the two positions – but this, it will be shown, does not absolve them from the common difficulties they must face when confronted with modal statements.