Re: SUO: intention vs. extension again
On 17.05.2001 8:44 Uhr, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> As I said before, I don't like the terms "perdurantist" and
> "endurantist", which were popularized by David Lewis (the same
> nut who thinks that possible worlds are "really real").
I didn't need to use them, but it was convenient.
> The view that I recommend is Whitehead's "process philosophy",
> which is four-dimensional, but it doesn't suffer from the flaws
> that Simons (and others have been criticizing). It would be a
> mistake to call W's processes "perdurantist" because he most
> definitely makes time and processes acting in time a very
> important part of his system. He also makes room for "objects",
> which he defines as repeatedly occurring event types, characterized
> by "forms of definiteness", such as the forms of a human body,
> a tree, or a house.
I wasn't trying to argue strongly for or against anything, just to point out
that a statement like Matt West made "To me one of the attractions of 4D is
the way that it simplifies some of these questions" deserved some
modulation, that's all..
..bill