SUO: Re: The Story So Far
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Chris Partridge wrote:
>
> John,
>
> You are right that people are using 3-D and 4-D -- and by association
> E(ndurantist) and P(erdurantist) -- to cover a wide variety of things.
> However, I think you would be wrong to dismiss the terms -- however
> ugly they are. They are terms of art in philosophical ontology and,
> while related to the points you make below, are not these points.
>
> It is plain that commonsense objects *persist* through time.
> The question is how to explain this (and so, at least partly,
> explain a number of other things). One answer is that these
> objects *perdure* through time -- so only a (temporal) part is
> present at any one time. Another answer is to say they *endure*
> through time -- where they are wholly present (whatever that means)
> at any time at which they are present. This is the *only* question
> that the E and P words deal with. It seems to me that this is a
> legitimate question -- even if we think the answer is obviously
> that objects *perdure* -- getting agreement on this would be
> a substantial step forward.
Chris,
I am wondering about the notions
of "explanation" and "legitimacy"
that you have in mind when you say:
> The question is how to explain this (and so,
> at least partly, explain a number of other things).
and
> It seems to me that this is a legitimate question --
For instance, do you have in mind any sort of experiment that
would conceivably distinguish the "ostensible options" (OO's)?
In other words, can you name any effects that might conceivably have
practical bearings and actual consequences that you can conceive the
options of these two conceptions to have? (-- To coin a phrase --)
Just Wondering,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤