The Endurance/Perdurance Controversy is No Storm in a Teacup

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskriftPeer review

3 Citeringar (SciVal)
409 Nedladdningar (Pure)

Sammanfattning

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.
Originalspråkengelska
Sidor (från-till)463-482
TidskriftAxiomathes
Volym24
Utgåva4
DOI
StatusPublished - 2014

Ämnesklassifikation (UKÄ)

  • Filosofi

Fingeravtryck

Utforska forskningsämnen för ”The Endurance/Perdurance Controversy is No Storm in a Teacup”. Tillsammans bildar de ett unikt fingeravtryck.

Citera det här