The Endurance/Perdurance Controversy is No Storm in a Teacup
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
Several philosophers have maintained in recent years that the endurance/perdurance debate is merely verbal: these prima facie distinct theories of objects’ persistence are in fact metaphysically equivalent, they claim. The present paper challenges this view. Three proposed translation schemes (those set forth by Miller 2005; McCall and Lowe 2006; Hirsch 2009) are examined; all are shown to be faulty. In the process, constructive reasons for regarding the debate as a substantive one are provided. It is also suggested that the theories may have differing practical implications.
|Research areas and keywords||
Subject classification (UKÄ) – MANDATORY
|Publication status||Published - 2014|
No data available