more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
Self-proclaimed four-dimensionalists typically adopt a picture that reckons instantaneous objects (and facts about them) to be more fundamental than long-lived ones.
Gist of Idea
Four-dimensionalists say instantaneous objects are more fundamental than long-lived ones
Source
John Hawthorne (Three-Dimensionalism v Four-Dimensionalism [2008], 2.2)
Book Ref
'Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics', ed/tr. Sider/Hawthorne/Zimmerman [Blackwell 2008], p.273
A Reaction
A nice elucidation. As in Idea 14588, this seems motivated by a desire for some sort of foundationalism or atomism. Why shouldn't a metaphysic treat the middle-sized or temporally extended as foundational, and derive the rest that way?
Related Idea
Idea 14588 Modern metaphysicians tend to think space-time points are more fundamental than space-time regions [Hawthorne]
14588 | Modern metaphysicians tend to think space-time points are more fundamental than space-time regions [Hawthorne] |
14589 | A modal can reverse meaning if the context is seen differently, so maybe context is all? [Hawthorne] |
14590 | If we accept scattered objects such as archipelagos, why not think of cars that way? [Hawthorne] |
14591 | Four-dimensionalists say instantaneous objects are more fundamental than long-lived ones [Hawthorne] |