Philosophia 34 (4):441-452 (2006)
AbstractFrom time to time, the idea that enduring things can change has been challenged. The latest challenge has come in the form of what David Lewis has called a “decisive objection”, which claims to deduce a contradiction from the idea that enduring things change with respect to their temporary intrinsics, when that idea is combined with eternalism. It is my aim in this paper to explain why I think that no argument has yet appeared that deduces a contradiction from a combination of eternalism and the idea that enduring things change with respect to their temporary intrinsics, except ones that do so by committing scope fallacies.
Similar books and articles
The Lowe Road to the Problem of Temporary Intrinsics.Lawrence B. Lombard - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 112 (2):163 - 185.
Three Arguments From Temporary Intrinsics.M. Eddon - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (3):605-619.
Aristotle on the Fallacies of Combination and Division in Sophistici Elenchi 4.Annamaria Schiaparelli - 2003 - History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):111-129.
Why Temporary Properties Are Not Relations Be- Tween Physical Objects and Times.Katherine Hawley - 1998 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98 (2):211–216.
The Case for Authority.Attila Tanyi - 2012 - In S. Schleidgen (ed.), Should we always act morally? Essays on Overridingness. Tectum. pp. 159-189.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Bent Not Broken: Why Exemplification Simpliciter Remains a Problem for Eternalist Endurantism.Daniel Giberman - 2017 - Erkenntnis 82 (5):947-966.