A Flawed Argument for Perdurance – Reply to Braddon-Mitchell and Miller
Noonan (Harold)
Source: Analysis 65.2, April 2005, pp. 164-166(3)
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsNotes Citing this PaperDisclaimer

Philosopher’s Index Abstract

  1. The article presents author's view on flawed argument for perdurance1.
  2. Braddon-Mitchell and Miller defend the argument.
  3. In this response the author acknowledges that the argument is still pretty weak.
  4. Braddon-Mitchell and Miller explain that the argument has two main parts.
  5. The author claims that the first part of the argument was flawed because it misapplied a sound principle like the Humean patchwork principle, and the second part was flawed because it assumed a principle – the 'nothing but' principle which no endurance theorist had to accept or should accept.
  6. Braddon-Mitchell and Miller reject both criticisms.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Apr 2020. 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