more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
I find it surprising that some philosophers accept 'coincident objects'. This notion clearly offends against commonsense 'naturalism' about the world, so it should be viewed as a last resort.
Gist of Idea
The idea of coincident objects is a last resort, as it is opposed to commonsense naturalism
Source
Michael Jubien (Possibility [2009], 5.2 n9)
Book Ref
Jubien,Michael: 'Possibility' [OUP 2009], p.129
A Reaction
I'm not quite clear why he invokes 'naturalism', but I pass on his intuition because it seems right to me.
| 16796 | Locke may accept coinciding material substances, such as body, man and person [Locke, by Pasnau] |
| 12970 | We can imagine two bodies interpenetrating, as two rays of light seem to [Leibniz] |
| 14744 | Objects can only coincide if they are of different kinds; trees can't coincide with other trees [Wiggins, by Sider] |
| 14750 | Two entities can coincide as one, but only one of them (the dominant sortal) fixes persistence conditions [Burke,M, by Sider] |
| 13401 | The idea of coincident objects is a last resort, as it is opposed to commonsense naturalism [Jubien] |
| 12024 | If we combined two clocks, it seems that two clocks may have become one clock. [Forbes,G] |
| 16080 | Is it possible for two things that are identical to become two separate things? [Rudder Baker] |
| 13918 | Holes, shadows and spots of light can coincide without being identical [Lowe] |
| 14743 | The stage view of objects is best for dealing with coincident entities [Sider] |
| 12820 | Without extensional mereology two objects can occupy the same position [Simons] |