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

9. Objects / E. Objects over Time / 2. Objects that Change

[how identity fares when an object's properties change]

17 ideas
For animate things, only the form, not the matter or properties, must persist through change [Aristotle, by Frede,M]
     Full Idea: If we analyze an ordinary physical object into matter, form and properties, the only item in the case of animate objects that has to stay the same as long as we can talk about the same thing is, on his account, the form.
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], change) by Michael Frede - Substance in Aristotle's 'Metaphysics' p.76
     A reaction: I would have thought that might work for inanimate natural things, and for artefacts, to a considerable extent. The Ship of Theseus retains its form.
Coming to be is by shape-change, addition, subtraction, composition or alteration [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: Things that come to be without further qualification do so either by change of shape (a statue) or by addition (growing things) or by subtraction (a carving) or by composition (a house) or by alteration (things changing their matter).
     From: Aristotle (Physics [c.337 BCE], 190b06)
     A reaction: [compressed] Aristotle observes that in each case there is clearly some 'underlying thing'.
Natural things are their own source of stability through change [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: The obvious difference between natural and non-natural things is that each of the natural ones contains within itself a source of change and of stability, in respect of either movement or increase and decrease or alteration.
     From: Aristotle (Physics [c.337 BCE], 192b14)
     A reaction: This is the reason why Aristotle places so much emphasis on lives, though elements also have persistence in a similar way. We now have atoms and molecules as well.
Change of matter doesn't destroy identity - in Dion and Theon change is a condition of identity [Chrysippus, by Long/Sedley]
     Full Idea: The Growing Argument said any change of matter is a change of identity. Chrysippus presents it with a case (Dion and Theon) where material diminution is the necessary condition of enduring identity, since the diminished footless Dion survives.
     From: report of Chrysippus (fragments/reports [c.240 BCE]) by AA Long / DN Sedley - Hellenic Philosophers commentary 28:175
     A reaction: [The example, in Idea 16058, is the original of Tibbles the Cat] This is a lovely bold idea which I haven't met in the modern discussions - that identity actually requires change. The concept of identity is meaningless without change?
If identity survives change or interruption, then resemblance, contiguity or causation must unite the parts of it [Hume]
     Full Idea: The objects which are variable or interrupted, and yet are supposed to continue the same, are such only as consist of a succession of parts, connected together by resemblance, contiguity, or causation.
     From: David Hume (Treatise of Human Nature [1739], I.IV.6)
If a republic can retain identity through many changes, so can an individual [Hume]
     Full Idea: As the same individual republic may not only change its members, but also its laws and constitutions; in like manner the same person may vary his character and disposition, as well as his impressions and ideas, without losing his identity.
     From: David Hume (Treatise of Human Nature [1739], I.IV.6)
To say something remains the same but lacks its capacities and powers seems a contradiction [Harré/Madden]
     Full Idea: Talk about particulars remaining the same and yet lacking their usual capacities and powers is at once to assert and deny that a certain object or sample of material has a given nature.
     From: Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 1.II.C)
     A reaction: They imply that this is a contradiction, and hence impossible. So what do we say about something in which the powers fade? Do they both retain and lose their identity? Or can we separate essence from identity?? Aha!
Some individuals can gain or lose capacities or powers, without losing their identity [Harré/Madden]
     Full Idea: Some individuals to gain or lose certain capacities or powers, but do not thereby lose their identity. They still have the same nature. A drug, or photographic paper, may lose effectiveness over time.
     From: Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 1.II.C)
     A reaction: Damn! I thought I was the first to spot this problem! I, however, take it to be much more metaphysically significant than Harré and Madden do. The question is whether those properties were essential, since they can be lost. Essential but not necessary!
A particular might change all of its characteristics, retaining mere numerical identity [Harré/Madden]
     Full Idea: Change might mean that a particular lost some or perhaps all of its previous characteristics and retained at worst only a dubious numerical identity derived from temporal continuity of the occupation of a place or continuous sequence of places.
     From: Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 8.II)
     A reaction: If all that is left is its location, that seems like passing-away rather than change. A dead leaf retains mere numerical identity while losing its essence. A burnt-up leaf might have a location, but it hardly qualifies as a 'leaf'.
Properties cannot be relations to times, if there are temporary properties which are intrinsic [Lewis, by Sider]
     Full Idea: The problem of 'temporary intrinsics' is that in one model we think of properties as relations to times (I am 'bent' relative to now), but change sometime involves intrinsic properties. I am just plain bent, not bent with respect to something else.
     From: report of David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], p.202-4) by Theodore Sider - Four Dimensionalism
     A reaction: [I've compressed Sider's summary] The question of whether intrinsic properties endure over time runs in parallel with the question of whether objects endure over time, and the two issues cannot be separated.
If a soldier continues to exist after serving as a soldier, does the wind cease to exist after it ceases to blow? [Benardete,JA]
     Full Idea: If a soldier need not cease to exist merely because he ceases to be a soldier, there is room to doubt that the wind ceases to exist when it ceases to be a wind.
     From: José A. Benardete (Metaphysics: the logical approach [1989], Ch. 6)
A 'substance' is a thing that remains the same when its properties change [Lowe]
     Full Idea: By 'substance', in the context of the mind, we mean a persisting object or thing which can undergo changes in its properties over time while remaining one and the same thing.
     From: E.J. Lowe (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2000], Ch. 2)
     A reaction: A neat account of the traditional philosophical notion of a substance. It invites the obvious question of how you know that a thing is the same if all of its properties seem to have changed (as with Descartes' wax). Epistemology discredits ontology.
'Adverbialism' explains change by saying an object has-at-some-time a given property [Hawley]
     Full Idea: Another strategy for the problem of change says that instantiation - the having of properties - is time-indexed, or relative to times, although properties themselves are not. This 'adverbialism' says that object has-at-t some property.
     From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.5)
     A reaction: [She cites Johnson, Lowe and Haslanger for this] Promising. The question is whether the time index is attached to the object, to the property, or to the instantiation. The middle one is wrong. There aren't two properties - green-at-t1 and green-at-t2.
Presentism solves the change problem: the green banana ceases, so can't 'relate' to the yellow one [Hawley]
     Full Idea: Adopting presentism solves the problem of change, since it means that, once the banana is yellow, there just is no green banana, and the question of the relationship between yesterday's green banana and today's yellow one therefore does not arise.
     From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 1.7)
     A reaction: Change remains kind of odd, but it is no longer the puzzlement of two things being the same when they are admitted to be different. There is only ever one thing. This is my preferred account, I think. I certainly hope past bananas don't exist.
The problem of change arises if there must be 'identity' of a thing over time [Hawley]
     Full Idea: It is the insistence on identity between objects wholly present at different times which gives rise to the problem of change.
     From: Katherine Hawley (How Things Persist [2001], 2.2)
     A reaction: My solution is to say things are the 'same', in a slightly loose non-transitive way, rather than formally identical, which is a concept from maths, not from reality.
Change is instantiation of a non-uniform distributional property, like 'being red-then-orange' [Cameron]
     Full Idea: What change is on the account being offered is to instantiate a non-uniform distributional property. Being red at one time and orange at a later time is to be analysed as instantiating the distributional property 'being red-then-orange'.
     From: Ross P. Cameron (Truthmaking for Presentists [2011], 4)
     A reaction: One of those moments when you begin to doubt whether 'being analysed' successfully actually adds much to our wisdom. His property sounds suspiciously 'gruesome' - i.e. subject to the vagaries of how we chose to describe the thing.
How does a changing object retain identity or have incompatible properties over time? [Baron/Miller]
     Full Idea: The problems of temporary intrinsics are reconciling the indiscernibility of identicals with change in an object over time, and the problem of something have incompatible properties over time (such as tired and not-tired).
     From: Baron,S/Miller,K (Intro to the Philosophy of Time [2019], 7.3.1)
     A reaction: Loosely speaking, I would offer some sort of essentialism as the answer to these problems. People are not essentially sitting down, or tired. Or we can relativise properties to times t1 and t2.