|Temporal Parts Unmotivated|
|Source: Philosophical Review 107 (1998), pp. 225–260|
|Paper - Abstract|
|Paper Statistics||Books / Papers Citing this Paper||Notes Citing this Paper||Disclaimer|
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)
|© Theo Todman, June 2007 - April 2019.||Please address any comments on this page to firstname.lastname@example.org.||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|