RE: SUO: The Story So Far
Chris,
As I said in my earlier notes, I believe that there are multiple
points involved in this discussion. And it is misleading to
lump them all under the terms "endurantist" or "perdurantist":
1. 3D or 4D coordinate systems.
2. Processes or objects as the fundamental entities.
3. Causality or time as the fundamental foundation.
4. Interpretation of identity and identity conditions.
The most "weird" position that Nicola seems to promote is
his interpretation of identity. That is separable from the
other points.
>I know Pat has already mentioned Barry Smith and Peter Simons. Can I also
>suggest Michael Loux (see his introductory book on Metaphysics -
>particularly the sections on Endurantism and Perdurantism :-) and E. J.
>Loux (Possibility of Metaphysics).
I believe that the first step toward resolving the disputes
is to get rid of those two terms. They lump too many separate
issues under two umbrella terms. I refuse to use them, and I
strongly suggest that we stop using them in these email
discussions.
> I will name more if it would make any
>difference. There are lots of people who seriously take this position.
That is another reason why I want to get rid of the terms.
Peter Simons, for example, has done a great deal of work with
Whitehead's process philosophy. I can't believe that he is
fully devoted to anything as weird as what Nicola was proposing.
>You say:
>The view that the statue and the clay are the "same thing"
>can be safely held in either a 3-D or a 4-D poin of view.
>I really don't know how to classify Nicola's position,
>since it seems to be inconsistent with the way ordinary
>human beings talk, with the way that scientists talk, and
>with the way that most philosophers talk.
>This seems to me false. On the face of it our language is 'Endurantist'.
Again, I don't know what you mean by that, since ordinary
English is perfectly well suited to being used on all
sides of the four issues I mention above. See, for example,
Whitehead's essay, which is written in ordinary English:
http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/ontology/anw_obj.htm
>I do not say 'my life went to the cinema last night' - or 'I am
long (in the
>same sense as 'I have had a long life'). We certainly do not say 'a temporal
>stage of me went to the cinema last night'.
Of course not. We use ordinary English terms, which can be
formally defined in many different ways. And the simplest way
I can see to define them makes them perfectly consistent with
Whitehead's process philosophy.
>As you can see, I think, as a matter of fact, you are incorrect in the way
>you characterize 'Nicola's' position.
The main thing that I object to in Nicola's position is his
interpretation of identity and his claim that the statue
and the clay are two different things. That is not something
that either scientists or the proverbial T. C. Mits would say.
John