more from Peter Simons

Single Idea 12836

[catalogued under 7. Existence / B. Change in Existence / 2. Processes]

Full Idea

Proponents of process ontology (except perhaps Whitehead, who is obscure) indulge in double-talk with concrete examples. It is cheating to talk of 'cat-processes', or 'bathing in river-stages'. You can't change the subject and leave the predicate alone.

Gist of Idea

Fans of process ontology cheat, since river-stages refer to 'rivers'


Peter Simons (Parts [1987], 3.4)

Book Reference

Simons,Peter: 'Parts: a Study in Ontology' [OUP 1987], p.125

A Reaction

It is one thing to admit processes into one's ontology, and another to have a 'process ontology', which presumably reduces objects to processes. I suppose the interest of continuant objects is precisely the aspect of them that is above any process.