Temporal Parts Unmotivated
Rea (Michael)
Source: Philosophical Review 107 (1998), pp. 225–260
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsBooks / Papers Citing this PaperNotes Citing this PaperDisclaimer

Philosophers Index Abstract

    The doctrine of temporal parts has been recommended on the grounds that

    (i) it is (at least) suggested by the special theory of relativity,
    (ii) it is the only view that makes sense out of the possibility of intrinsic change,
    (iii) it is the only view consistent with the doctrine of Humean supervenience1; and
    (iv) it makes better sense than its competitor out of the possibility of fission.

    I argue that none of (i)-(iv) and that, therefore the doctrine of temporal parts stands unmotivated.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - April 2019. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page