How Coincidence Bears on Persistence

Philosophia 39 (4):759-770 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The ‘paradoxes of coincidence’ are generally taken as an important factor for deciding between rival views on persistence through time. In particular, the ability to deal with apparent cases of temporary coincidence is usually regarded as a good reason for favouring perdurantism (or ‘four-dimensionalism’) over endurantism (or ‘three-dimensionalism’). However, the recent work of Gilmore ( 2007 ) and McGrath ( 2007 ) challenges this standard view. For different reasons, both Gilmore and McGrath conclude that perdurantism does not really obtain support from the puzzles of temporary coincidence. In this paper, I will evaluate their arguments and defend the opposite view: that the paradoxes of coincidence do give some support to perdurantism. However, the way in which they do so is rather unexpected. As we will see, there are different ways in which coincidence scenarios may be thought to support perdurantism, some of which have not yet been sufficiently explored. Thus, my immediate goal is to explore one of those directions, bringing into focus a new argument from coincidence to perdurantism. And although I motivate my discussion by examining the arguments in the work of Gilmore and McGrath, the merits of this argument can be independently assessed. More generally, my overall purpose is to contribute to our general understanding of how the topics of coincidence and persistence bear on each other

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why Four-Dimensionalism Explains Coincidence.Maya Eddon - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (4):721-728.
Does Four-dimensionalism explain coincidence?∗.Mark Moyer - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3):479-488.
Persistence and Determination.Katherine Hawley - 2008 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 62:197-212.
What Are Mathematical Coincidences ?M. Lange - 2010 - Mind 119 (474):307-340.
Compatibilism about Coincidence.Thomas Sattig - 2010 - Philosophical Review 119 (3):273-313.
Relativity and persistence.Yuri Balashov - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (3):562.

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-03-27

Downloads
144 (#120,199)

6 months
11 (#128,523)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Location and Mereology.Cody Gilmore - 2013 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Enduring Through Gunk.Matt Leonard - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (4):753-771.
Temporal Parts.Katherine Hawley - 2004/2010 - Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

New work for a theory of universals.David K. Lewis - 1983 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61 (4):343-377.
Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time.Theodore Sider - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (3):642-647.
New Work For a Theory of Universals.David Lewis - 1983 - In D. H. Mellor & Alex Oliver (eds.), Properties. Oxford University Press.
Putnam’s paradox.David Lewis - 1984 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62 (3):221 – 236.

View all 13 references / Add more references