structure for 'Objects'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     expand these ideas

9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 3. Unity Problems / c. Statue and clay

[united objects with separate aspects]

38 ideas
The statue is not called 'stone' but 'stoney' [Aristotle]
Primary matter and form make a unity, one in potentiality, the other in actuality [Aristotle]
Statues depend on their bronze, but bronze doesn't depend on statues [Aristotle, by Gill,ML]
A nature is related to a substance as shapeless matter is to something which has a shape [Aristotle]
Shape is essential relative to 'statue', but not essential relative to 'clay' [Putnam]
If there are two objects, then 'that marble, man-shaped object' is ambiguous [Ayers]
If a statue is identical with the clay of which it is made, that identity is contingent [Gibbard]
A 'piece' of clay begins when its parts stick together, separately from other clay [Gibbard]
Clay and statue are two objects, which can be named and reasoned about [Gibbard]
We can only investigate the identity once we have designated it as 'statue' or as 'clay' [Gibbard]
The statue and lump seem to share parts, but the statue is not part of the lump [Inwagen]
If you knead clay you make an infinite series of objects, but they are rearrangements, not creations [Inwagen]
Sculpting a lump of clay destroys one object, and replaces it with another one [Burke,M, by Wasserman]
Burke says when two object coincide, one of them is destroyed in the process [Burke,M, by Hawley]
Maybe the clay becomes a different lump when it becomes a statue [Burke,M, by Koslicki]
If the statue is loved and the clay hated, that is about the object first qua statue, then qua clay [Jubien]
If one entity is an object, a statue, and some clay, these come apart in at least three ways [Jubien]
A statue is essentially the statue, but its lump is not essentially a statue, so statue isn't lump [Yablo, by Rocca]
Statues and bronze lumps have discernible differences, so can't be identical [Heil]
Do we reduce statues to bronze, or eliminate statues, or allow statues and bronze? [Heil]
Clay is intrinsically and atomically the same as statue (and that lacks 'modal properties') [Rudder Baker]
The clay is not a statue - it borrows that property from the statue it constitutes [Rudder Baker]
The essence of lumps and statues shows that two objects coincide but are numerically distinct [Lowe]
The essence of a bronze statue shows that it could be made of different bronze [Lowe]
Statues can't survive much change to their shape, unlike lumps of bronze, which must retain material [Lowe]
Artists 'create' statues because they are essentially statues, and so lack identity with the lump of clay [Sider]
The modal features of statue and lump are disputed; when does it stop being that statue? [Hawley]
Perdurantists can adopt counterpart theory, to explain modal differences of identical part-sums [Hawley]
Clay does not 'constitute' a statue, as they have different persistence conditions (flaking, squashing) [Merricks]
Maybe we should give up the statue [Elder]
A statue and its matter have different persistence conditions, so they are not identical [Macdonald,C]
The clay is just a part of the statue (its matter); the rest consists of its form or structure [Koslicki]
Statue and clay differ in modal and temporal properties, and in constitution [Koslicki]
We can explain the statue/clay problem by a category mistake with a false premise [Magidor]
If the statue and the lump are two objects, they require separate properties, so we could add their masses [Thomasson]
Given the similarity of statue and lump, what could possibly ground their modal properties? [Thomasson]
If statue and clay fall and crush someone, the event is not overdetermined [Mumford/Anjum]
If clay survives destruction of the statue, the statue wasn't a substance, but a mere accident [Pasnau]